tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57085111918732029592017-09-25T02:43:57.535-07:00Mr VoxpopperA blog challenging political correctness, group-think, phoney victimhood and virtue-signalling cant.Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-47477594604611014182017-09-25T02:43:00.000-07:002017-09-25T02:43:57.557-07:00Why Brexit must mean Brexit There seems to be no limit to the attempts by bewildered and angry Remainers to overturn the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. This cabal of international minded corporatists led by the likes of Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine, Tony Blair, Vince Cable and Nick Clegg still appear to be completely mystified as to why they have lost the arguments over the future direction of Britain. They seem not to understand that there is more to a nation’s self identity and worth than access to a large trading bloc. Fortunately the majority of parliamentarians, some reluctantly, appear to have accepted that if the referendum decision of the electorate is to mean anything then we must exit the single market and customs union. Not to do so will leave us half in and half out of this anti democratic, technocratic, supra-national failing bureaucracy that is fast heading for collapse due to its unsustainable overreach. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e30Q0d99w4o/WcjPh9ma_uI/AAAAAAAAGPY/6jNUCqWpqxAC8hSoOYNr4PdxAQ3Rq2IaQCLcBGAs/s1600/Brexit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e30Q0d99w4o/WcjPh9ma_uI/AAAAAAAAGPY/6jNUCqWpqxAC8hSoOYNr4PdxAQ3Rq2IaQCLcBGAs/s320/Brexit.jpg" width="320" height="183" data-original-width="698" data-original-height="400" /></a></div><p> Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is quite right to dismiss the pessimistic ‘Project Fear’ alarmism of the Remainers, and to stress the benefits and gains that will accrue to Britain outside the EU. Hard Brexit means leaving the EU. Soft Brexit means ignoring the result of the referendum and allowing Britain to still remain enmeshed in the tentacles the European Project, a messy attempt at a compromise which satisfies nobody. Under such an arrangement Britain would still be subject to the European Court of Justice and continue to pay vast sums to Brussels. Moreover, we would no longer have any say in the decision making process but would have to continue to accept freedom of movement of people from other EU countries. Remaining part of the customs union would prevent Britain from agreeing trade deals with nations outside the EU that comprise the majority of our international trade. <p> More important however than the economic and trade consequences is the reclamation of British parliamentary sovereignty that a Hard Brexit will bring. As has been revealed in recent parliamentary debates, over 12, 000 pieces of legislation have been imposed on Britain during the period of EU membership, none of which appears to have received any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. This contempt for democracy which the Remainers wish to preserve, motivated by their disdain of the nation state, must end, and only a Hard Brexit can deliver it. So let Brexit mean Brexit and let there be no shilly-shallying about the matter. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-81564087624563632052017-08-21T02:57:00.000-07:002017-08-21T02:57:15.111-07:00Gay Pride in the Summer of Love Britain’s equivalent of <i>Pravda</i>, the BBC, mouthpiece of the ruling politically correct class, has recently been enjoying a field day celebrating the 50th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between men over 21. It was, of course, right to pass this legislation in 1967 to end such a grotesque intrusion into the personal life of British citizens. But although the target has changed, the invasion of privacy by the state into individuals personal sexual relations and behaviour continues, this time with the ideological fervour of self styled ‘progressives’, employing ever widening concepts of ‘abuse’ and ‘vulnerability’ to enforce their political agenda. This post examines how parliamentarians of the mid 1960s viewed the issue of homosexuality and whether there are any comparisons with today’s crusades against forbidden sex. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a0zNzOd3tlA/WZquZdjojLI/AAAAAAAAGDg/VIdAtIbuMu4vHagwgAshKYyvMirsi1vRgCLcBGAs/s1600/gayoldtimes090629_1_560.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-a0zNzOd3tlA/WZquZdjojLI/AAAAAAAAGDg/VIdAtIbuMu4vHagwgAshKYyvMirsi1vRgCLcBGAs/s320/gayoldtimes090629_1_560.jpg" width="320" height="182" data-original-width="560" data-original-height="318" /></a></div><p> The sponsor of the private member’s bill which decriminalised adult male homosexual activity was the Labour MP Leo Abse. He reminded MPs that it was a decade since the Wolfenden Committee has recommended the abolition of this offence. He estimated the number of homosexual men to be about 750,000 and pointed out that ‘the law gives them a brutal choice. It offers them either celibacy or criminality, and nothing in between.’ He revealed one surprising statistic, that the number of convictions of adult men who commit homosexual acts in private was about 100 a year, thus ‘there was a 30,000-to-one chance of an illicit act leading to a conviction’ (his maths are a little shaky but his point is still valid). <p> He continued ‘therefore, we have an unenforceable Act, and it would require a massive recruitment of police and an invasion of privacy which all of us would find quite intolerable before the law could begin to be enforced. It is bad law because it is unenforceable law, and it is bad law because it is utterly random in its application.’ This criticism would apply to many laws today, not only those involving sexual relations, but also illegal drug possession, most notably cannabis. But there is no debate over whether such an invasion of privacy would ever reach the stage of becoming ‘intolerable’, or any concerns about randomness, although of course it still remains the case that laws of this kind, because of the sheer numbers involved, largely remain unenforceable. <p> Mr Abse drew attention to the effect of the law to ‘stigmatise thousands of our citizens as being outlaws and pariahs, large numbers of people who, apart from this particular aberration, are totally law-abiding.’ He pinpointed a concern of many MPs that there is ‘a dastardly effect of the present law which cannot be under-estimated. It is the fact that blackmail is the ambience which wraps itself around the existing law.’ Some MPs questioned whether blackmailers would disappear given the general abhorrence of homosexuality in wider society at that time, and the wish of many homosexuals to keep their behaviour a secret from their families. Others believed than men who were being blackmailed would now be able to go to the police without the fear of being prosecuted themselves. <p> The climate of the time was wholly hostile to the practice of homosexuality as demonstrated by Mr Abse’s belief that society ‘should focus on the question of how we can, if it is possible, reduce the number of faulty males in the community. How can we diminish the number of those who grow up to have men's bodies but feminine souls?’ There are shades here of the current transgender debate, but the message is clear from his speech that he considered homosexuality to be an aberration against traditional ideas of masculinity, and that more needed to be done to encourage correct notions of manhood in the raising of boys. Mr Abse concluded that the ‘continuance of the existing law fosters the illusion that solely by punishment we can prevent homosexuality. In my view, the passage of this Bill would free society from much of its morbid preoccupation with punishment. It could release its energies to the more constructive task of fostering family relations in which children can grow up certain of their identity and confident of their own role’. The current agenda for the undermining and confusing of sexual identity, through the promotion of ‘transgenderism’ in children, which dangerously gives encouragement to the delusional belief that the sex they were born into can be changed, was still a long way in the future. <p> One Conservative MP raised the often asked question ‘we have been told by many people that homosexuals are born. Surely the removal of the deterrent in the form of punishment, such as imprisonment, cannot cause more of them to be born. The reason is, in my view, that the majority of homosexuals are made and not born’. There was a widespread fear at the time, by those opposed to decriminalisation, that this measure would release a pent up desire by many men to engage in homosexual practices. In fact all the evidence since decriminalisation suggests that homosexuals are born not made, although a small minority of heterosexual men may engage in short lived youthful experimentation. As one MP put it ‘there is a hidden assumption among some of the opponents of the Bill that homosexuality is inherently very attractive and more enjoyable than normal sexual relations. They seem to think that once the present law is abolished a lot of previously law-abiding heterosexuals will shout "hurrah" and become homosexuals.’ <p> Some MPs feared there might be some unintended consequences to changing the law, one observing that ‘I think it is worth considering the side effects of the Bill. We should, I presume, get a succession of plays on television and on the stage on the subject. We should get more books on it. We should get more clubs. I believe that the vice would be looked upon as a normal and natural part of our daily life, and all checks would be gone.’ His concerns about this development would in time be realised in full as the gay pride bandwagon rolled ever onwards with the enthusiastic support of the emerging politically correct establishment. <p> Another Conservative MP, a future cabinet minister, in support of the legislation observed that ‘the present law seems to have almost everything possible wrong with it. It is unjust, unenforceable, hypocritical, illogical and an invitation to further crime. It is unjust because it singles out, quite arbitrarily a particular set of people for their particular habits. It is unenforceable because there are too many of these people to enable the law to be enforced. It is hypocritical because everyone knows homosexuals and everyone knows that there are homosexuals in all walks of life. The law is illogical because it treats male homosexuality as more damaging to the social fabric or the nation's bloodstream than female homosexuality or adultery, as though it is uniquely anti-social.’ This summarised the conflict between the private behaviour of individuals and the collective values of wider society. It raised the question to what extent should the law invade the sphere of private life to police the concerns, often exaggerated, of those with a moralistic, ideological, scaremongering or controlling agenda on appropriate sexual expression. <p> This fear of a backlash by wider society was voiced by a Tory MP opposing the change in these terms ‘the trouble is that the law is accepted by the community, rightly or wrongly, as representing the moral standards and the strength of the social fabric. This House cannot right a wrong just by changing the law. It has to consider the psychological implications on society of this House coming forward, as the public will see it and saying that we are giving our blessing to sexual licence, and to a practice which you regard as abominable.’ With the arrival of gay pride as a pillar of the politically correct establishment, anyone rash enough to denounce the practice of homosexuality today as ‘abominable’ would be immediately branded ‘homophobic’, and could risk having his collar felt by the police for a ‘hate crime’. Society has moved from one form of state repression to another that is equally pernicious. <p> Some MPs feared a change in the law could lead to the public promotion of homosexuality (which is what soon happened), one doubting that ‘even the most doughty champion of the Bill would deny that many male homosexuals are of the proselytising type. Even they have very great misgivings about the propensity of homosexuals to try to spread their practice among others. I do not think that that can be denied. To make such a denial would be to go back on the principle on which the clauses increasing penalties for corruption of young people are based.’ The Bill included a provision to increase the prison sentence from two years to five years for those engaging in homosexual acts with males under the age of 21. The now sainted Alan Turing’s conviction involved a 19 year old, but although there is no talk now of the ‘corruption’ of young people by behaviour such as his, all MPs during the debate supported the increased penalties for acts of this kind which were then seen as predatory. This only goes to prove that paranoia over sexual expression and behaviour can change over time, depending on which groups are most vocal in promoting their agenda, and without necessarily being based on evidence or investigation into whether any harm is caused. <p> One Labour MP, a doctor, raised the concern ‘we all condemn the fact that many homosexuals contract venereal diseases’. Just over a decade later the rampant promiscuity of homosexuals would see thousands dying from Aids with many more needing permanent costly treatment to tackle the effects of being HIV positive. The BBC programmes celebrating the change in public attitudes to homosexuality rarely question whether homosexuals should accept responsibility for the adverse consequences of their behaviour, focussing instead on the traumatic effects that were tragically, unpredictably and unfairly visited upon the gay community by these kinds of infections. <p> A Conservative MP supporting the Bill raised the issue of privacy pointing out that the law ‘can be made effectively and universally enforceable only at the price of a police state, of a degree of supervision of private life which this country, even in its most puritanical periods, has never been prepared to accept.’ Whilst this observation is undoubtedly true, there are many parliamentarians and opinion formers today who are quite content for the state to micromanage private and personal relationships of the increasing numbers deemed to be ‘vulnerable’, and believed to be at risk of becoming a ‘victim’ of ever widening definitions of ‘sexual abuse’. But they never describe this intrusion into personal behaviour as a move towards a police state, which in effect is what this kind of crusade is now in danger of becoming. <p> The legislation allowing the change in the law was a private member’s bill but was supported by the Labour government. The Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, spoke during the debate, firmly supporting the view that ‘homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should no longer be subject to the penalties and processes of the criminal law’. He continued ‘I believe that whatever our views about particular forms of conduct, there has to be a very clear social purpose served before it is right to subject private conduct to the rigours of the criminal law. The present law is manifestly unsuccessful and capricious in its incidence. It certainly does not deal with homosexual behaviour, let alone stamp it out. There is certainly no evidence whatever that homosexuality has increased in those countries which have relaxed the law. The present law certainly does not discourage homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality cannot be described as a disease in the sense that it can be cured; it is a disability. The capricious way in which the law operates, ruins the lives of a relatively small number of homosexuals by subjecting them in a quite irrational and arbitrary way to the terrifying penalties of the law, terrifying not because of the criminal penalties, but because of the ruinous consequences.’ <p> The Home Secretary’s views chimed with the humane outlook of the time based on the civilised notion that the state should stay out of the role of policing private behaviour, harassing its citizens and ruining their lives in pursuit of a political or religious agenda. In recent decades we have seen the rise of a zealous ideological stridency, this time led by self styled ‘progressives’, in which the target has moved from homosexual to heterosexual men, who now find themselves having to defend themselves against the ever increasing reach of legislation and propaganda that stigmatises normal male sexual attraction and behaviour as a dangerous pathology. There always seem to be elements in society who crave the need to target, demonise and humiliate artificially created scapegoats, against whom self righteous individuals can parade their superior moral virtues, this time through a crusade against exaggerated victimhood. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-62988159270339722382017-08-01T10:26:00.002-07:002017-08-01T10:26:50.792-07:00Policing teenagers As part of the <i>File on 4 </i>radio series the BBC recently broadcast the story of a youth in his early teens who came out as gay and as a consequence became the subject of online approaches by adult men. The agenda behind the programme was to condemn the response of the police and to question ‘whether they have been slow to get to grips with cases of child exploitation when they involve boys’. The BBC has for decades been promoting homosexuality as a perfectly normal and natural, almost commendable, form of sexual expression. More recently the corporation has become equally zealous in furthering the hysteria over paedophilia that has become the main money-spinner for children’s charities. This programme brought together the agenda for the promotion of homosexuality with the paranoia over paedophilia that warrants some consideration. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7062jtfLZqg/WYC5uialtII/AAAAAAAAF8s/txqCvuiZ2y8qFnykbKbnvhz0Zo4ggqlbwCLcBGAs/s1600/sddefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7062jtfLZqg/WYC5uialtII/AAAAAAAAF8s/txqCvuiZ2y8qFnykbKbnvhz0Zo4ggqlbwCLcBGAs/s320/sddefault.jpg" width="320" height="180" data-original-width="640" data-original-height="360" /></a></div><p> The programme centred around Yorkshire schoolboy Ben who at the age of 13 announced on Facebook that he was gay. This came as a shock to his parents who thought that he was a bit young to make such a decision publicly. However, they accepted the situation but warned him to be careful ‘as there are some nasty people out there’. Previous to his announcement Ben had many school friends but they all melted away when his homosexuality was revealed. We are constantly being told by the politically correct class that attitudes to homosexuality have changed out of all recognition in recent times. However, the response of Ben’s schoolmates suggests that many people still take a different view to the establishment line on this matter. <p> Because he had been shunned by his school fellows Ben felt isolated and started to search online for youths of about his own age who might be gay. At no time in the programme is Ben ever criticised for the many foolhardy and irresponsible actions he took. Instead he is presented as a helpless victim of events beyond his control. Quite soon Ben is sending out naked photos of himself to an older teenager, and is being contacted by adult men looking for sex. As a result Ben contacted Childline who in turn informed the police. Two police officers visited Ben and advised him not to send out naked photos again, the issue which Ben was mainly concerned about as the older teenager had started to blackmail him. The police took no action on the advances of the older men as Ben himself was less concerned about this. In the words of Ben ‘he did not think this much of an issue’. <p> So Ben continued to chat online with the older men and agreed to meet up with some of them. Ben’s behaviour started to change and his relationship with his parents began to deteriorate, and there was also a detrimental impact on his schoolwork. However, at this stage the parents were still unaware of the extent of Ben’s activities. They would soon find out as his school had discovered that he had been meeting up with men for sex during his lunch breaks. The police were called and his mobile phone and laptop were confiscated. Ben claimed that his mental state began to deteriorate and he started to self harm. He blamed the men whom he was meeting for ‘brainwashing’ him into this sexual activity, in so doing absolving himself of all responsibility for his potentially deleterious actions. <p> By now all the major safeguarding agencies had become involved but according to the programme ‘had failed to get a grip’. It was alleged that these agencies didn’t treat the sexual exploitation of boys with the same seriousness as that against girls. The parents started to blame themselves for what happened and warned the men contacting Ben to keep away from him. Ben however was still meeting them and even travelled to London to stay the weekend with one of his contacts. On this occasion the police were called who tracked Ben down, taking him to a police station where his parents had to make the long journey to London to collect him. <p> The police informed the parents of the large cost of the operation to find Ben involving several police forces. At the same time the police warned Ben that he was the ‘facilitator’ and that if it wasn’t for his age they would not be investigating the matter. They also threatened him with being placed in a ‘secure unit’ if he did not change his behaviour as he was wasting police time and money. In the programme the parents are outraged by this police response, failing to acknowledge that Ben’s reckless behaviour could be a contributory factor. Ben himself stated that the police ‘didn’t want to help him and just considered him to be a nuisance’. Ben, like his parents, takes no responsibility for his own behaviour, describing himself as ‘vulnerable’. <p> Although Ben’s parents now start to take more responsibility to prevent Ben seeking out men, Ben himself still manages to continue seeing them. Another meeting is arranged between the parents and the police, where Ben is again accused of being a facilitator and that they do not have the resources to monitor him until he reaches the age of 16. This response appalled the parents, who still viewed Ben as a blameless victim. According to a police memo the case officer recorded that ‘I get the impression that the family only see Ben as a victim, and are blinkered to the fact that he is partially responsible for instigating the offences himself.’ A ‘child protection expert’ recruited by the BBC blamed this outlook on police prejudice against ‘gay young men who want to experiment with sex and go out looking for it’. The BBC’s expert denounced this as a ‘dangerous’ viewpoint, without providing any evidence, analysis or arguments to back up this opinion. Despite the police’s concern about Ben’s behaviour and the impact on time and resources, in practice, the police continued to investigate the ‘grooming’ behaviour of men targeting Ben, covering a period of several years. <p> It should be realised that this radio programme was a one sided piece of propaganda in which the BBC controlled all the information provided to the listener. For example, we never get to hear how Ben presented himself on social media and whether he notified his contacts of his true age. There was plenty of criticism of the police for failing to investigate the men who were supposedly ‘grooming’ Ben, despite Ben himself not being much troubled by their attentions. <p> Grooming is a 21st century legal term coined as a result of the spreading paranoia over teenage sexual activity. In popular parlance it is called ‘chatting up’, a preliminary ritual in which young men flatter reluctant young ladies in the hope of eventually ‘scoring’ with them. However, homosexuals rarely do chatting up, since both parties being promiscuous they pretty soon quickly get down to business. The criminalisation of chatting up teenagers now means that it is an offence for an 18 year old youth to ask a 15 year old girl for a date, as the authorities now deem this to be ‘evidence’ of ‘grooming’ and thus a sexual offence. <p> Although physically now an adult, in the programme Ben is repeatedly described as either a ‘boy’ or a ‘child’, and the message is repeatedly conveyed that he is a helpless victim who requires the open ended involvement of the safeguarding authorities, regardless of the time, cost or effort involved. Coming out as gay was presented in the programme as being nothing more than a label, or a badge, supporting a favoured minority group, with the implicit message that Ben had demonstrated honesty and courage in publicly displaying his sexual orientation. What the programme failed to realise however was that coming out as gay meant in practice that Ben now believed that he had reached an age when he wished to engage in sexual relations with other males. So it should have really come as no surprise that as soon as he was provided with an opportunity to do so, he quickly put his sexual orientation into practice by willingly engaging in sex with the men who had contacted him. This is what being gay is all about and Ben through his recklessness, willingly and repeatedly assumed the role of a rent boy. <p> There is no doubt that Ben behaved foolishly in engaging in sexual relation with men he hardly knew, as he could easily have become infected with sexually transmitted diseases (STD), which because of their often rampant promiscuity, homosexual men are much more likely to suffer from than the general population. But the BBC showed no concern about the risk from STDs since it would stigmatise homosexuals, and thus be contrary to their agenda of always presenting gay people in a positive light. Instead they focussed on the ‘abuse’ that Ben was supposedly facing. However, the police in a rare display of realism, rightly recognised that Ben was a willing participant in the sexual activity with older men, and because of this they were castigated for the crime of telling the truth and not sticking to the approved script of combating the ‘abuse’. <p> The safeguarding authorities take the view that all instances of sexual activity involving teenagers below the age of consent constitutes ‘sexual abuse’, regardless of whether they were willing participants, or whether they were harmed in any way. Enormous publicity is given to middle aged adults claiming that they were ‘abused’ ‘over a period of years’ when they were in their teens. They can do this safely under cover of anonymity and it is impossible to challenge or investigate their accounts. We are never told why they continued to collude in the ‘abuse’ without taking the obvious and easily achievable steps to put a stop to it. In conformity with this agenda the wider media never investigate or challenge the collusion of these often compensation seeking ‘victims’. <p> During the programme Ben, against all the evidence, continued to insist that he was a blameless victim, a vulnerable teenager brainwashed by these demonised men. But we were never told what harm he experienced through his willing sexual encounters, just a repetition that he had been a victim of ‘abuse’ in conformity with children’s charities money minting agenda that sexual activity becomes a psychological pathology whenever engaged in by young teens. The degree to which state authorities now consider it appropriate to micromanage the personal lives of young teenagers is invasive, intrusive as well as pointless given the vast numbers of individuals involved practicing this state disapproved behaviour. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-22238618374904304842017-06-12T06:08:00.003-07:002017-06-12T06:08:38.060-07:00Election 2017 blues The outcome of Teresa May’s snap election has come as a big disappointment to those on the right of British politics. Far from achieving the landslide predicted at the time she called the election, the Tories have been left without an overall majority. Her authority as Conservative leader has been seriously diminished. So what went wrong? <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-irkgv5iGhw0/WT6SPRicnlI/AAAAAAAAFro/RQ12jUbCLmA2u00Sm1PZ49Ab55sbFIjQQCLcB/s1600/JS94876395.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-irkgv5iGhw0/WT6SPRicnlI/AAAAAAAAFro/RQ12jUbCLmA2u00Sm1PZ49Ab55sbFIjQQCLcB/s320/JS94876395.jpg" width="320" height="213" data-original-width="615" data-original-height="409" /></a></div> <p> To look on the bright side the Conservatives achieved nearly 60 more seats than Labour, they won both the largest share, and total vote, of any party in recent elections, and they ended all talk of a second Scottish independence referendum for the foreseeable future. Although the Tories lack an overall majority, the parliamentary arithmetic is still in their favour as the seven Sinn Fein members will not be attending parliament. In addition, she can count on the support of the ten Democratic Unionists, so in practical terms she has the backing of about 328 members, whereas the combined strength of the opposition parties can never exceed 315, thus giving the Tories a working majority of around 13. <p> With the benefit of hindsight it becomes easier to see the folly of Teresa May and her party becoming beguiled by favourable opinion poll ratings, and underestimating how they could melt away in the heat of a campaign. What has now become apparent is that Teresa May’s political style is managerial, lacking the human engagement with the electorate to win them over when the going gets tough. She appeared robotic and uncomfortable in interviews, and by ducking the leadership debates she gave the impression of being both ‘frit’ and arrogant at the same time. In contrast Jeremy Corbyn proved adept at campaigning and winning over audiences, in contrast to his often plodding parliamentary performances. <p> The ostensible reason for calling the election was to strengthen Teresa May’s hand in the negotiations on leaving the EU. However, in practice the focus on this objective was quickly overtaken by other issues, in particular Labour’s stress on ending austerity, the under-funding of public services and the failure of the Tories to raise living standards for ordinary people. The two terrorist atrocities allowed Labour to point the finger at Tory cuts in police manpower. In their complacency, the Tories alienated older supporters with ill thought out proposals for the funding of social care and the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment for most pensioners. In contract Labour could entice young voters with the abolition of tuition fees. At the end of the day little positive reasons were provided in the manifesto for people to vote Tory. Their strategy can be summarised as trust Teresa May as she is clearly more competent than the unelectable extremist Jeremy Corbyn, whom they proceeded to demonise with the aid and support of their press backers. Unfortunately for the Tories insufficient members of the electorate were persuaded by these negative tactics. <p> So what of the future? The main task remains a satisfactory outcome in the negotiations to leave the European Union. The election outcome should have no impact on this as the only parliamentary vote will be on whether to accept the final agreement reached. The Tories will need to do more to end low pay, improve public services, reverse the fall in home ownership, and make a more determined effort to reduce uncontrolled immigration, in particular of Muslims through arranged marriages. Unfortunately, the Conservatives commitment to introduce more grammar schools now looks a lot more problematic, given the lukewarm approach of some Tory MPs. <p> With regard to the other parties, Jeremy Corbyn should be congratulated for increasing the Labour vote by nearly ten per cent when many pundits, including the majority of his MPs, had written him off at the start of the campaign. Although sincere and straight talking he remains a deeply unsavoury character with his past sympathy for IRA terrorist objectives, toleration of Islamist fanatics, and admiration for repugnant or dysfunctional Marxist regimes such as those of Castro and Chavez. He would be more than happy to flood Britain with immigrants from all parts of the globe, and his reflex public obsequiousness towards ethnic minority people and their often regressive practices, and sometimes degenerate culture, is nothing more than nauseating virtue signalling. <p> Despite all this Labour still managed to produce some sensible policies. Gas, electricity and water are all natural monopolies, and their privatisation has provided only fake competition and negligible benefits. It cannot be right that young people are saddled with huge debts for a university education. Unfettered globalisation appears to have enriched those who caused the financial crash with obscene telephone number bonuses, yet impoverished still further those with the least skills at the bottom end of society. <p> As for the minor parties, UKIP is clearly finished having served its purpose. It may have a residual role as a pressure group for a clean British EU exit if Nigel Farage is prepared to resume the leadership. The Liberal Democrats plan to scupper Brexit with a second referendum thankfully gained no traction and the party remains an irrelevance. The Green Party continues on the fringe of British politics where it belongs. Although environmental protection is important the Greens’ infatuation with the ludicrous and discredited climate change hoax means they cannot be taken seriously about anything. <p> In conclusion, the Tories should make the best of the hand they have been dealt. There should be no backsliding on leaving the European Union, including withdrawal from the single market and customs union and ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Until the Brexit negotiations have been successfully completed, nothing would be gained by a change in the Conservative leadership, and an early general election might lead to still more support for the Labour party. So the Tories should stay united, get on with governing the country and demonstrate that they can deliver administrative and economic competence. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-79062039501635204412017-06-05T03:24:00.002-07:002017-06-05T03:24:49.791-07:00President Trump gives a leadPoliticians sometimes like to proclaim that it is necessary for them to provide a lead in order that an outcome that is ultimately beneficial to society is achieved. President Trump has shown in no uncertain terms his willingness to demonstrate such a lead when he pulled the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement. It is to be hoped that other countries follow suit, in particular President Putin of Russia who has always appeared lukewarm over the global warming agenda. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y3303pXQTao/WTUxViwIoCI/AAAAAAAAFow/45QwhmgWaPQ3lEj_FGJXM-H0M0EYgWxmgCLcB/s1600/science-march-washington-climate-change-trump.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y3303pXQTao/WTUxViwIoCI/AAAAAAAAFow/45QwhmgWaPQ3lEj_FGJXM-H0M0EYgWxmgCLcB/s320/science-march-washington-climate-change-trump.jpeg" width="320" height="214" data-original-width="1600" data-original-height="1068" /></a></div><p> Needless to say Trump’s wise decision to confront reality on this matter has provoked predictable howls of outrage from European Union leaders, who have been the most vocal supporters of the failed theory that increases in CO2 emissions lead to a rise in global temperatures resulting in uncontrollable climate change. In fact the reality has been that for the past two centuries, since the end of the ‘little ice age’ which saw frost fairs held on the Thames, there has been remarkably little change in global temperature despite a considerable increase in CO2 emissions. Therefore it is reasonable to assume the next couple of centuries will similarly show little change in global temperatures. <p> Supporters of the climate change hoax point out that 95% of scientists believe that climate change is a ‘reality’. What they fail to point out is that in the 1970s 95% of scientists believed that CO2 emissions were not a problem that would lead to rising global temperatures. Indeed some of the more vocal climatologists, as shown here http://bit.ly/27RaoNr, were concerned instead that we were heading for a new ice age, on the grounds that global temperatures had been on a falling trend during the previous thirty years. It should also be remembered that the discovery that CO2 was a greenhouse gas took place in the late 19th century, but only became problematic for scientists a century later. <p> Promoters of climate change alarmism invariably cite more extreme weather phenomena, which always occur, albeit infrequently, as ‘evidence’ of climate change. For example a few years back Britain was subjected to a prolonged drought which the alarmist pundits blamed on global warming. But later when the problem was reversed and severe flooding occurred, these same pundits also blamed global warming as the cause. Climate change means that the climate of a country is gradually moving in one direction, in this instance either becoming drier, or wetter. It cannot be both and constitute a change in climate. So the alarmists are confusing extreme weather variables as supposed evidence of a trend towards a changing climate. It should never be forgotten that the motivation for the climate change hoax is political one, not a search for scientific truth. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-16762190845667008952017-06-01T09:30:00.001-07:002017-06-01T09:30:05.923-07:00What is Islamophobia?Over the years the politically correct class has coined a variety of deprecatory labels designed to both denigrate their opponents and promote their own virtue. Words such as a sexist, racist, homophobia and transphobia have entered the political lexicon. Self styled ‘progressives’ enjoy challenging the supposedly ‘bigoted’ beliefs of their opponents, but they rarely engage in open debate on the merits of their own views, preferring instead to silence opposition through the method of pejorative denunciation. <p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ybErGq5hF_g/WTBA_MDA7tI/AAAAAAAAFnY/lFDBVfXlwSYwUvHbwYwBJbBVOLr_n2deACLcB/s1600/Islamophobia-rally.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ybErGq5hF_g/WTBA_MDA7tI/AAAAAAAAFnY/lFDBVfXlwSYwUvHbwYwBJbBVOLr_n2deACLcB/s320/Islamophobia-rally.jpg" width="320" height="268" data-original-width="385" data-original-height="322" /></a></div><p> One such label is ‘Islamophobia’ which is designed to deflect any open discussion or investigation that might shine a light on the dark age superstition that is sometimes promoted as the ‘religion of peace’. What is never made clear is why the general public should not be phobic about this belief system, when it is clearly the driving force behind the overwhelming majority of terrorist atrocities and military conflict in the world today. <p> Defenders of Islam often try to equate jihadism with the comparatively miniscule examples of right wing violence. There is however one crucial difference between the two, right wing ideology is condemned regardless of whether or not it is accompanied by violence. In contrast the motivation behind jihadism, namely Islam, is rarely ever questioned but instead is accepted as a normal and rational belief system. <p> In reality there is no theological distinction between terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and the barbarous Islamic regimes of Iran and Saudi Arabia, with their oppression of women, suppression of religious minorities and routine use of executions for minor infractions of a repressive moral code, together with numerous other deeply regressive practices. The only difference is that the terrorists groups are more likely to openly support jihadism to achieve their objective of a global Islamic caliphate. Hypocritically, British governments have condemned the Islamic terrorist groups whilst at the same time providing billions of pounds worth of arms to the repulsive Saudi regime. Moreover, politicians have also ludicrously attempted to set themselves up as Islamic scholars by trying to define what are, and are not, real Islamic values. <p> The politically correct class have shown the same double standard, condemning political parties such as UKIP for supposedly fomenting ‘hate’ and ‘bigotry’, whilst rushing to condemn those who question the regressive practices of Islam as promoting Islamophobia. So the answer to the question as to what constitutes Islamophobia can be defined as ‘a well founded rational fear that Islam presents a mortal danger to western cultural and political values, and way of life’. So instead of being cowed by accusations of Islamophobia people should instead embrace it as a badge of honour. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-79929833324513922592017-04-20T06:19:00.003-07:002017-04-20T06:19:51.960-07:00UKIP and the Tories – what’s the difference?The decision of the British people to leave the European Union would never have happened without the pressure put on the Conservative Party by UKIP. Despite having no more than two MPs, the threat they posed forced the pro-EU Conservative prime minister David Cameron to hold a referendum that he and most of his cabinet colleagues had wished to avoid. This outcome against the odds was a magnificent achievement by UKIP, and a personal triumph for their leader Nigel Farage. However, since the referendum UKIP have struggled to find a role now that they have achieved their primary objective. So, with a general election announced, it is worth considering if the party has a continuing role to play in British politics. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oFEZdq2Yjo8/WPi1Xy9_8CI/AAAAAAAAFYM/J_R8LtJWoEIjYliY4nElqNQ92wsviygvwCLcB/s1600/374338_1267288932692_400_267.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oFEZdq2Yjo8/WPi1Xy9_8CI/AAAAAAAAFYM/J_R8LtJWoEIjYliY4nElqNQ92wsviygvwCLcB/s320/374338_1267288932692_400_267.jpg" width="320" height="214" /></a></div><p> Both of the former UKIP MPs, Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless, have left the party believing that it has now served its purpose. Their viewpoint is reinforced by the perception that the Conservatives under Theresa May will settle for a trading arrangement outside the EU customs union and single market. So is there now any meaningful difference between the two parties? <p> In addition to leaving the EU the strongest selling points for UKIP were a tougher line on immigration and a commitment to reintroduce grammar schools. However, UKIP’s policy on immigration is not as robust as it needs to be, since they are in favour of a points based system that gives priority to Commonwealth citizens. The problem with a points based system is that once an applicant achieves the requisite number of points they automatically become eligible for entry. Allowing unfettered Commonwealth immigration from societies with very different cultural values to our own would only compound the problems of integration that we have wrestled with for the past half century or more. <p> The reason Britain still needs skilled workers from overseas is because employers have failed to properly train UK workers. So to put pressure on employers to devote more resources to training they should face a ‘failure to train’ levy on any foreign worker they wish to employ. This should amount to £10,000 for any worker from Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA, and £20,000 for the rest of the world, to be paid annually up to a maximum of five years, with no guarantee of citizenship. These amounts could be ratcheted up over time to put further pressure on recalcitrant employers. The NHS will be exempt, but the training of British born medical staff will have to become a top priority. So currently neither UKIP nor the Tories can be relied on to deliver an immigration policy that prioritises the interests of British citizens. <p> Since the election of Theresa May as leader the Tories have started to make some encouraging noises on the reintroduction of grammar schools. The justification for this move is that they provide an improved route to achieve social mobility for bright children from working class backgrounds. It allows such pupils to benefit from an academic education, removed from the distraction and influence of their anti-attainment peers that is regrettably commonplace in working class culture. Grammar schools face stiff opposition from the educational establishment, opposition parties and sadly also some elements within the Conservatives, so it is to be hoped that their supporters can hold their nerve and face down these ideologically driven egalitarian agitators. <p> What other policies do the parties have which can be commended? UKIP has promised to repeal the Climate Change Act foolishly introduced when the global warming scare was at its height. Both parties are committed to the scrapping the Human Rights Act and ensuring that the Supreme Court is indeed supreme and not subordinate to any outside jurisdiction. However the Tories are still trying to pander to political correctness by seeking to extend so called ‘hate crimes’ as well as attacking freedom of expression by the use of banning orders for undefined ‘extremist’ organisations. Many of the two parties other policies are managerial in nature and could be introduced by either without seriously undermining their wider ideological objectives. <p> Having two parties with separate manifestos does allow more ideas to be generated, which if they are sound, can be poached by the other party. Currently many working class Labour voters are unwilling to vote Conservative, but might be tempted to support UKIP. But under the current voting system UKIP are unlikely to win any seats in the coming election, whereas the Tories look to be heading for a 100 seat majority if the polls are to be believed. In the circumstances a vote for UKIP appears to be a wasted one, and it might allow Labour to retain seats which would otherwise have been lost, had the political right remained undivided. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-405581669296973492017-03-29T07:04:00.001-07:002017-03-29T07:04:22.366-07:00Dame Janet Smith BBC report into Jimmy Savile part two – ethos and cultureDame Janet Smith not only sat in judgement on Jimmy Savile in her BBC report but she also condemned a whole way of life from our past. One quote that keeps reappearing in her report is ‘things were different in those days’ when discussing the post permissive, but pre feminist period, from the late 1960s to about the early 1980s. This post will try to identify what was so different about this earlier period compared to more recent years, and whether the Dame is right in deploring the outlook of society then, which she investigated as part of the background to her report. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ydEHygLjKHE/WNu-06pgTXI/AAAAAAAAFQk/PtNBXnCL0tYXZZbU_e28IBw_TaGbl3yuQCLcB/s1600/Alec-Bray-styrer-Mole-krana-1965.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ydEHygLjKHE/WNu-06pgTXI/AAAAAAAAFQk/PtNBXnCL0tYXZZbU_e28IBw_TaGbl3yuQCLcB/s320/Alec-Bray-styrer-Mole-krana-1965.jpg" width="320" height="226" /></a></div><p> It was part of her remit to ‘consider whether the culture and practices within the BBC during the years of Jimmy Savile’s employment enabled inappropriate sexual conduct to continue unchecked’. The BBC as a broadcaster came to realise that change was in the air, observing that ‘sexual behaviour which once would have been regarded as completely out of order is regarded as possibly acceptable, possibly normative, and the BBC is both trying to reflect this as a broadcaster and also is wrestling with some of the consequences of it’. <p> Many BBC staff and other witnesses reported that ‘attitudes towards sexual behaviour were more tolerant in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s than the attitudes we have today’. Dame Janet acknowledged that from the 1960s onwards ‘there was a rapid change in sexual and social mores, particularly among the younger generation’. Such changes were ascribed to the arrival of pop music and the loosening of censorship after the <i>Lady Chatterley</i> trial. Sex outside marriage became more widely acceptable, and there was a more general openness and frankness about sexual matters. <p> Dame Janet revealed that ‘at about this time, there was much discussion about whether there should be a reduction in the age at which a woman could consent to sexual intercourse.’ She continues ‘one argument advanced by those in favour of a reduction in the age of consent was that so many young people under the age of 16 were having sex; they were not only willing to do it but were not going to be stopped.’ She pointed out that the police could only prosecute those few cases where a complaint was made. Since the law was being widely disregarded, and had fallen out of step with social mores, it was argued by some that the age of consent should be reduced to 13. These were not arguments which convinced either legislators of the time, or Dame Janet, who proclaimed that ‘the law must be able to protect young people if they call for protection and should also seek to protect them from seduction by adults.’ <p> Some commentators expressed the view ‘that people were not as aware of the significance of the age of consent as we are today, and that there was a much more relaxed approach to this question’. Dame Janet is correct when she acknowledges that during this period there was very little discussion about the ‘sexual abuse’ of young people, indeed the phrase had hardly been coined at that time. She concludes that the question that needs to be addressed is ‘whether, in the general population, the more relaxed attitudes towards heterosexual sex outside marriage included a more relaxed attitude towards underage sex and, in particular, a more relaxed attitude towards sex between an older man and a teenage girl.’ <p> Witnesses revealed that attitudes towards the age of consent during this period had become very blurred, and that an increasing number of people regarded sex between a younger teenage girl and an older teenage boyfriend as acceptable, and that the important thing was to help her to avoid pregnancy. However, there appears to have been less social acceptance of sexual relations between a young teenage girl and a man in his thirties or older. Despite this there was little real sense of public outrage when such celebrity relationships were revealed in the press, perhaps due to the perception that such conduct was acceptable for celebrities. More generally the prevailing outlook, in the words of one witness, was that ‘the culture of the time was such that there was not a moral police attitude.’ <p> Dame Janet does not buy into this permissive outlook. She condemned the viewpoint that such conduct, in the words of one witness, was ‘an unavoidable aspect of modern life and that there was nothing which could be done about it; the girls were willing and it was up to them.’ She believed that this attitude ‘was fostered or at any rate allowed to remain unchallenged because there were so few women in senior positions.’ She criticized the dominance of male management which she claimed created or permitted a ‘macho’ culture which allowed a casual attitude towards sex and what was acceptable behaviour, and also in attitudes towards women in the workplace. <p> Dame Janet discovered that sexual harassment was commonplace in many parts of the BBC, creating an atmosphere where women found it difficult to report complaints. There were very few female managers and generally the attitude of male managers appeared unconcerned about the issue. One female witness described the situation as ‘there were lots of wandering hands, comments about your body, chaps just felt it was perfectly fine to put their hand on your bottom, and other places.’ In response one former male manager accepted that there were ‘touchy-feely people who would always go and put their arm around a girl’ but said that challenging such behaviour did not feature high on his list of priorities. However, he thought that the young women were ‘strong enough to stand up for themselves and could give as good as they got, and probably would have done’. On the subject of sexual activity between an older male and a young girl in her mid-teens, she concluded that ‘beginning in the 1960s and continuing over the next two decades, there was a relaxation in our attitude towards such behaviour.’ Within the BBC the Dame thought that ‘there was a general perception that many girls of 14 or 15 were ready and willing to have sex with their pop idols. They hung around waiting for them, behaving in an excited way’. Staff took the view that if they wanted to have sex with celebrities it was a matter for them and no one else’s business, even though the activity was unlawful. <p> She contrasted this viewpoint with the current outlook whereby ‘we are much more conscious of the damage which can be done to a young person who enters into an unequal relationship with an older, powerful, charismatic man for whom the relationship is casual and unimportant. We are now far more disapproving of such relationships. To that extent I do accept that things were different in those days’. Dame Janet claims that ‘our knowledge and understanding of the need for child protection has changed radically. Until the late 1980s, the sexual abuse of children was barely acknowledged to exist; it is now widely discussed. Our understanding of the circumstances in which this can occur and the devastating effects it can have on victims has grown and continues to increase almost daily.’ <p> Dame Janet’s conclusions on child protection were that during the period between the 1960s and the 1990s, this was a subject that was very low on the BBC’s radar, that no clear policies or procedures existed and such matters were generally not discussed. Managers were unaware of ‘the dangers of bringing together disc jockeys and young girls in circumstances in which assignations of a sexual nature might be made.’ She emphasised some factors which were general in society during this period which contributed to this outlook. These were a failure to see sexual abuse of the young as a significant major problem, and to recognise the need to protect young people around the age of consent from exploitation by older men, underpinned by the prevailing outlook that, once a girl had reached the age of 16, anything went. Dame Janet added that there was a failure to recognise the seriousness of the harm which could be done to young people who might (albeit lawfully and willingly) be drawn into casual sexual contact with older men who were abusing the power given to them by their age or position. <p> Dame Janet summarises this situation in the phrase ‘moral danger’, defined as the risk to which young teenage girls might be exposed as the result of finding themselves in the company of older men and ‘liable to be involved in sexual conduct which might be unlawful on account of their youth or might be inappropriate and emotionally damaging to them on account of their lack of maturity.’ <p> Dame Janet appears to combine the Victorian social purity of Josephine Butler, the anti permissiveness of Mary Whitehouse, and the strident feminist agenda of Harriet Harman. Her conclusions encapsulate the convergence between the feminist agitation over ‘rape culture’ and children’s charities fear mongering over ‘child sexual abuse’. The former has expanded to include any disapproved physical or verbal interaction between men and women, and the definition of the latter has been widened to include any social activity by men with females still in their teens. Dame Janet implicitly promotes the view that it is a legitimate role of the law, and those in positions of authority, to police in minute detail the interpersonal relations between those of the opposite sex in general and teenagers in particular. <p> As Dame Janet has recorded teenagers in the 1960s and 1970s were keen to escape the repressive and hard line sexual straightjacket which pre-permissive society had imposed on their parents and grandparents. Neither teenagers themselves, nor the BBC management responsible for organising <i>Top of the Pops</i>, would have welcomed the kind of intrusive surveillance which Dame Janet appears to be advocating under the pretext of child protection. Young people of that period would have been aghast in disbelief that the clock would again be turned back to an oppressive chaperoning regime that undermines young persons self reliance and personal autonomy, under the disguise of protecting the vulnerable. We really have to trust teenagers on the management of their personal relationships, and if they make mistakes as they surely will, then they will undoubtedly learn from the experience, and not allow it to blight the rest of their life which is what is happening under the therapy culture of today promoted by the likes of Dame Janet. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-9042618894072209432017-03-21T10:35:00.000-07:002017-03-21T10:35:28.049-07:00Dame Janet Smith BBC report into Jimmy Savile Part 1 - AccusationsThe investigation carried out by Dame Janet Smith into the activities of Jimmy Savile at the BBC was set up in October 2012 in the wake of the ‘revelations’ made in the ITV programme <i>Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile</i>. At that time the reasonable assumption was made that the evidence presented in this programme was truthful and genuine. In fact, as the intrepid bloggers, Anna Raccoon, Moor Larkin & Rabbitaway have revealed, it was a compendium of falsehoods, fabrications and misleading exaggerations as outlined in this earlier blogpost here. <a href="http://bit.ly/2dybGYs">http://bit.ly/2dybGYs </a>This post attempts a belated analysis of the conclusions reached in the Dame’s report published in March 2016, and includes findings revealed by the above investigative bloggers. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s8VwcetIr88/WNFkBDuleeI/AAAAAAAAFNE/qx_yr5B15x4KaY-jilGvjve0mlEtgflwgCLcB/s1600/11270531-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s8VwcetIr88/WNFkBDuleeI/AAAAAAAAFNE/qx_yr5B15x4KaY-jilGvjve0mlEtgflwgCLcB/s320/11270531-1.jpg" width="320" height="214" /></a></div><p> The Smith report is extensive running to well over 700 pages. Its primary conclusion was that although many BBC staff claimed to have heard rumours about Jimmy Savile the senior management of the BBC were never presented with any evidence of wrongdoing. The reason for reaching this conclusion in the report is that there was no record of any junior or middle management staff ever communicating their concerns about Savile to senior management. However, as will be explained in some detail below, the real reason why senior management heard nothing is because there was nothing to hear that was worth communicating. The allegations against Savile appear to fall into three categories, hearsay and rumour, the relatively harmless and trivial, and the fantastical. <p> The Dame doesn’t take too long before she tells us where she is coming from when she declares ‘in early October 2012, the country was deeply shocked about revelations that Savile, the well-known and well-loved television personality and charity fundraiser had in fact been a prolific sex offender.’ She repeats this again later ‘in the weeks following the disclosures about Savile’s sexual misconduct in October 2012’. This viewpoint can only have been reached by swallowing wholesale the deceptions in the <i>Exposure</i> programme. <p> Whilst this casual acceptance would be understandable at the start of the investigation, it becomes untenable by the time the report was published, given the amount of contradictory evidence that had been unearthed and placed in the public domain by the investigative bloggers. So her default position throughout the investigation is based on the falsehood that Savile must have been a sexual predator because that is what the Exposure programme supposedly uncovered beyond reasonable doubt. The Dame need not be censured too much about this, she only fell into the same trap that just about everybody else did, namely accepting the <i>Exposure</i> deceits without question or investigation. So all her deliberations must be viewed critically through the prism of her overt confirmation bias that Savile was a ‘prolific sex offender’, a viewpoint which must seriously have influenced the objectivity of her conclusions. In short, she has assumed his guilt and then set about building a case to justify it. <p> Dame Janet declared that ‘I have applied the civil standard of proof. That is to say that I have accepted evidence if I think that, on the balance of probabilities, it is true and accurate.’ In fact it soon becomes apparent that she has deviated quite considerably from this already fairly low standard of proof. What she has instead done is invariably accept that the accusers’ claims are true, unless there is fairly clear proof that they are lying. She has approached her investigation with the ingrained belief that Savile was a sexual predator and that his ‘victims’ should be believed. As we have seen in other well publicised cases this seems to be standard practice among prosecuting authorities these days. <p> We first need to examine the allegations relating to the <i>Exposure</i> programme that involve the BBC. To her credit Dame Janet firmly dismisses the testimony of Wilfred De’ath who repeated to her the tale he told in the TV programme. The Dame however got hold of a bundle of BBC documents which cast doubt on De’ath’s claims. She re-interviewed him and concluded that his account ‘contained so many inaccuracies’ that no reliance can be placed upon it. <p> The testimonies of Val and Angie formed a crucial part of the <i>Exposure</i> programme’s agenda of demonising Savile, and Dame Janet has related their claims in some depth. They are described as two of a group of teenage girls who formed what she terms the ‘London Team’. The accounts of Val and Angie are substantially the same as that given on the <i>Exposure programme</i>, although much additional detail has been provided. Their close relationship with Savile lasted for a period of at least five years before it ended, although they remained in contact with Savile for some time afterwards. <p> What the Dame failed to grasp is that Val and Angie are the same pair as the two women who wrote to Louis Theroux, revealed in a later part of the report. In their letter to Theroux they corrected the impression he gave in his TV programme that Savile did not have regular girlfriends. They also confirmed that neither of them experienced any abuse from Savile, making it clear that their relationships with him had been consensual, and that they had stayed on friendly terms with him for some time afterwards. So the only conclusion that can be reached is that, in fundamentally changing their stories to one of abusive behaviour, both Val and Angie have provided false testimony to the Exposure programme and to Dame Janet’s investigation. <p> In the <i>Exposure</i> programme Fiona, a former Duncroft approved school pupil, claimed that Savile assaulted her in a dressing room at BBC Television Centre after the recording of the <i>Clunk-Click</i> TV programme. In Dame Janet’s report the witness C30, a former Duncroft pupil, makes similar claims against Savile that were made by Fiona in Exposure, so it appears likely that they are both the same individual. Intriguingly the Dame concluded that ‘there are a number of elements of her evidence (C30) which are open to question and I do not feel able to make a decision about her claim of abuse, beyond saying that it might have happened and it might not’. Evidence has come to light that Fiona arrived at Duncroft only after the <i>Clunk-Click </i>series ended, and thus her testimony on <i>Exposure</i> (and to the Dame if she is C30) must be false. <p> In the Exposure programme another Duncroft pupil Charlotte claimed that Savile assaulted her in his caravan during the recording of a radio show, which could only have been <i>Savile’s Travels</i>. However, there is no evidence in the BBC records of such a programme being made from Duncroft, nor is there evidence in the Duncroft records that Charlotte was placed in isolation after she complained to teachers about this supposed incident. As there is no reference in the Smith report to this allegation it must be concluded that it was another attempt by the <i>Exposure</i> producers to defame the memory of Savile. To summarise, five of the six most damaging claims against Savile in the Exposure programme involved him working at or for the BBC. As can be seen from the above analysis, all of them are false. <p> To tie up the Duncroft saga, the Smith report does serve a useful purpose as it reveals how Savile came to visit Duncroft School in the first place. Witness A22 was a former resident at Duncroft who introduced Savile to the school after she met him at a social event. In the words of the report ‘her evidence is that he always behaved impeccably and her account contradicts much of what the other Duncroft witnesses say about Savile. A22 was clearly very close to Savile and thought very highly of him. She had a relationship with him after she left Duncroft. I have no reason to doubt her evidence that, while she was at Duncroft, Savile behaved impeccably in her presence’. Full details about A22’s relationship with Savile can be found on the Anna Raccoon website. <p> Having dealt with the Exposure stories it is time to examine some of the more fantastical claims made in the Smith report. Kevin Cook, as a nine year old, was one of a party of scouts who attended <i>Jim’ll Fix It</i> in January 1977 who shared a badge given to the whole troupe. Cook claimed that Savile took him aside and asked whether he would like a badge of his own, to which he answered yes. He then claims that Savile told him that he would have to ‘earn’ his badge and took him to a dressing room where he carried out sexual acts on Cook. This activity was interrupted by another man entering the dressing room. <p> However, Cook has come up with two separate stories about this second unidentified man. In the first the man immediately leaves, in the second he also starts to participate in the abuse against Cook, that also involves some violence. The Dame declared that this ‘change in Mr Cook’s account made it difficult for me to make up my mind whether his account was true’. She re-interviews him and accepts his explanation that ‘he had found talking about the second stage of the abuse even more embarrassing than the first’. She then concludes that she is ‘quite satisfied that his account was true and that both men had abused him’ <p> However Moor Larkin has uncovered this revealing comment on an ITV discussion board ‘my husband was also one of the scouts that attended that day with this chap, he was chaperoned everywhere with an adult and had no problems at all.’ In a later part of the report Dame Janet commends the strict chaperoning regime on <i>Jim’ll Fix It</i>. This required that a child was always accompanied by a parent, chaperone or member of staff. Dame Janet stated ‘I am satisfied that that rule was strictly followed’. Moreover, according to BBC staff, Savile’s dressing room was usually so full of people that he would never be alone with a child, and his door was almost always open. It is difficult to believe that this young scout would not have been missed by the rest of the group and the leader, that he would have remained silent on the matter to his scout friends afterwards, especially after he got his individual badge, and that he would not have raised the matter at some point with his parents, but instead kept quiet about it for over 35 years. <p> One of the more bizarre incidents of alleged abuse by Savile took place whilst he was dressed in a Womble suit. C9 was a ten year old boy when he was taken by his grandfather to <i>Top of the Pops</i>. C46 was a twelve year old girl with her aunt at the same recording in late 1973. None of them had a ticket, they were waiting in the queue hoping to get in. Savile suddenly appeared at the entrance and agreed to take in the two children leaving the adults outside. Savile appeared throughout the show in a Womble suit. After the show was over they were both brought together to Savile’s dressing room. Savile took off his Womble outfit and proceeded to carry out a sex act on the boy, which was painful and caused some bleeding. He then carried out another sex act with the girl. Savile told them not to tell anyone as it was their secret, and he then left the room. They were then escorted to the exit by a member of staff where they rejoined the two waiting adults. Neither the boy nor the girl ever told anybody about this incident. <p> Dame Janet acknowledged that there were some inconsistencies and improbabilities in their accounts. These relate to the nature of the attacks and the state of undress, that children this young would unlikely to be allowed in the audience, one of the bands had pre-recorded their performance and were not at this show and inaccurate descriptions of how the acts were presented. Both C9 and C46 were represented by the same firm of solicitors. Despite all this the Dame is convinced that both are telling the truth. Some further facts have come to light. Mike Batt created The Wombles and the suits were the responsibility of his mother. According to Mike Batt because of their expensive cost, she never let them out of her sight. Moreover, the Womble outfits cannot be opened from the front, so Savile may have needed some assistance in the removal. <p> Another questionable account comes from C42, a 15 year old girl living in Manchester. She attended a recording of <i>Top of the Pops</i> in June 1970, travelling to London by train with a friend. They were both met at the studio by the programme’s photographer Harry Goodwin. At the end of the recordings Mr Goodwin introduced them to Jimmy Savile, who invited C42 to his dressing room for some signed photographs, leaving her friend with Mr Goodwin. Savile then carried out various sexual acts with her in the dressing room, before she managed to escape and rejoin her friend in the cafeteria. Mr Goodwin invited them out for a meal but C42 said she was unhappy and wanted to return to Euston station to catch a train for home. She never mentioned the incident to anyone until the Savile scandal broke in 2012. <p> During this period <i>Top of the Pops</i> was recorded at BBC TV Centre on Wednesdays between 7.30-10 pm for transmission the following day. So it would not have been possible for C42 to escape from her ordeal in Savile’s dressing room earlier than about 10.30 pm but maybe as late as 11 pm. Thus it was far too late for her to contemplate both having a meal and returning to Euston station to travel home to Manchester as the last train would have long since left by then. It is also difficult to believe that two 15 year old would be allowed to travel from Manchester to London during term time, and be able to make an unfamiliar and complicated journey across London. <p> Leisha Brookes was about nine years old in 1976 when she was first taken to BBC TV Centre by her stepfather’s friend Douglas Sillitoe, who worked for the BBC as a scene painter. He took her to the television centre about once a fortnight over a two year period, and she had access to many parts of the building, where she often saw or met celebrities. She claims that she was abused by about 30 of Sillitoe’s work colleagues at the BBC. One of these men was Savile, who she recognised from <i>Jim’ll Fix It</i>. She claimed he ‘promised to show her his big chair although he never did’. Leisha claims that when she was 19 she made a long statement to Merseyside police about the sexual abuse she had suffered including that from Savile. However, she claims that the police did not take any action on the ground that there was not enough evidence. Dame Janet concludes that she may have been abused by Silitoe’s colleagues as part of a paedophile ring, but accepts her claim that she was definitely abused by Savile. <p> Because the alleged offences took place in London, Merseyside police would have sent her witness statement to the Metropolitan police. However, enquiries of the Metropolitan police have proved fruitless as no trace of the complaint or any statement was found. As an adult Leisha Brookes has been repeatedly prosecuted for the non payment of her TV licence. Previous to 2012 her justification for non payment was for ‘personal reasons’. However in 2013 she refused to pay as a protest against her abuse ‘by Jimmy Savile and 35 other men at the BBC's headquarters’ that ‘wrecked her life, leading to mental health problems and suicide attempts’ It is difficult to believe that a paedophile ring of about 30 men would have operated at the TV centre without it coming to light. It is also unlikely that a major celebrity such Jimmy Savile would have been part of a ring comprising ordinary workmen. It must be concluded that her allegations appear to be extremely fanciful. <p> C38 was a 15 year old youth from Newcastle-upon-Tyne when he travelled by car with his elder brother and a friend to <i>Top Of The Pops</i> in the winter of 1964/65. His elder brother and friend were let in by the doorman but C38 was refused entry because he was too young. Because he wanted to keep in the warmth he decided to stay in the foyer until his companions returned after the end of the recording. During his wait C38 went into the gent’s toilet where he was soon joined by Savile and a companion. Without speaking to him Savile then proceeded to carry out various sex acts which C38 found painful. In shock he ran out of the building and down the road where he waited outside until the recording was over. He did not speak to his brother about this incident. <p> Images of the tickets to <i>Top of the Pops</i> from the 1964/65 period are still in the public domain, and clearly state that the minimum age for entry was 14. So C38 should have had no problems gaining entrance to the recording on grounds of age. The minimum age for entry was raised to 16 at a later date. Moreover, a car journey between Newcastle and Manchester in winter over the Pennines would have been a rather hazardous adventure for three youths in the largely pre-motorway era, particularly the night time return journey. In must be concluded that this is another very questionable account. <p> C39 was a 16 year old girl from Liverpool who attended <i>Top of the Pops</i> with a group of friends in 1964. After the recording she became separated from her friends, and in looking for them came across Savile. She told him that she was lost and that she and her companions were good friends with The Hollies pop group. Savile suggested that the group would probably be at a local nightspot and offered to take her there in his car. However, at the door C39 was refused entry because of her age. Savile went in alone but on his return claimed that he could not find The Hollies or her friends. After trying several more night clubs, without success in tracking down her friends, C39 agreed to spend the night at Savile’s flat, as by then it was too late to catch the train home to Liverpool. She described his flat as being part of a large Victorian property. During the night Savile entered her room and proceeded to rape her. She left in the morning and told her friend what had happened. Her friend informed her that The Hollies had in fact been at the first night club with their companions, but warned C39 that if they mentioned what had happened they would get no more tickets to Top of the Pops, so she told nobody else. <p> There are some problems with this account. The Dickinson Road studios, where <i>Top of the Pops</i> was recorded, are located in a converted church and due to the small size it would be very difficult for C39 to become completely detached from her companions, particularly as they would also be looking for her after they became separated. It is difficult to believe that she would have been refused entry to the night club when accompanied by a national celebrity such as Savile, particularly as her friends of a similar age had already been let in. In a time before ID requirements she would almost certainly have been waved through, even if there were some doubts about her age. One further point casting doubt on her claims is that, according to Moor Larkin, from 1963 Savile’s flat in Salford was part of a modern block, not a large Victorian house. Given all this, C39 is another case in which the wool appears to have been pulled over Dame Janet’s eyes. <p> Quite a few of the assaults recorded in the report would come under the heading of unsolicited touching. Whilst this behaviour can clearly be annoying to some women, the frequency which it seems to have occurred before the rise of feminism suggests that it was not as unacceptable to all women as it is considered now. Unlike the drab and scruffy attire worn by many women today, at that time most of them dressed in a feminine way that appealed to men, and many were flattered and reassured when they received physical evidence that they were attractive. However, this is not behaviour which can be condoned as it is clearly invasive and disrespectful to women. <p> One thing in common about all these alleged assaults is that the person now making the accusation either told nobody about it at the time, or if they did, they never took it further by using the BBC’s complaints procedure or informing the police. The usual reasons given for this are that either they thought they would not be believed or that they did not want to make a fuss or cause trouble. However, the law on sexual assaults is there for anyone who wants its protection and always has been. Common sense dictates that if an assault is not reported it will not be investigated. Contrary to what is often claimed today, the police have always treated sexual assault cases seriously, but to discover the truth they require evidence and full information as close as possible to the time when the assault took place. If genuine victims of assault say nothing about it at the time they have only themselves to blame if perpetrators get away with it, and so it is no use whingeing about the unfairness of it all decades later. <p> It must be concluded that Dame Janet’s report is almost worthless in discovering the truth about Jimmy Savile’s sexual escapades. She has made only the most cursory investigation into the allegations, treating the interviews as almost a therapy session, rather than seriously probing the claimants to tease out inconsistencies and improbabilities in their accounts. Her starting point has been that Savile was already a proven ‘prolific sexual predator’, and she has bent over backwards to accept the claims presented to her, no matter how fanciful or fantastical they might appear, or contrary to common sense. Part 2 of this blogpost will take a look at the culture and ethos of the BBC and wider society during the pre-feminist period which seems to have provoked Dame Janet’s ire. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-91583460392426270012017-03-09T09:04:00.001-08:002017-03-09T09:04:08.877-08:00More gay liberation 1950s styleBritish governments like to promote themselves as presiding over a country noted for its values of tolerance and inclusion. They cite the widespread acceptance of gay people and same sex marriage as an example of our moral superiority over previous generations and some other less ‘advanced’ societies. What they overlook is that this lifestyle has only relatively recently been considered acceptable. Until 1967 consenting adult males were imprisoned for homosexual activity in private, and as late as the early 1990s the penalty for the homosexual offence that their icon Alan Turing was convicted of could still attract a five years sentence. It is therefore worth a trip back in time to the late 1950s to examine the justification for what is now considered by many to be extreme intolerance towards a persecuted minority. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SZkcgX1k3qU/WMGK-WtoKRI/AAAAAAAAFII/qw0SWNHg6Bkt_QEqfwAKTkR2fQDb42ZzwCLcB/s1600/51RsRZwyxOL._SX331_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SZkcgX1k3qU/WMGK-WtoKRI/AAAAAAAAFII/qw0SWNHg6Bkt_QEqfwAKTkR2fQDb42ZzwCLcB/s320/51RsRZwyxOL._SX331_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" width="214" height="320" /></a></div><p> In August 1954 the Conservative government commissioned a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden to investigate whether the law needed to be changed on homosexuality (and also prostitution), and their findings were published in September 1957. A previous blogpost analysed the views of the House of Lords on the recommendation of the committee to legalise homosexual relations for males over the age of 21. This post examines the views of MPs towards the Wolfenden Report. <p> The parliamentary debate was opened by the Home Secretary R A Butler who recognised that ‘the perennial dilemmas of organised society is, how far the law should seek to regulate the behaviour of individuals…. and what is the sphere which it is proper to leave to the dictates of the individual conscience.’ The main issue he thought needed to be considered was whether ‘such conduct between consenting adults in private is injurious to society, or is it a matter entirely for the private consciences of the parties concerned.’ The Committee had argued that to carry the criminal law beyond its proper sphere is to undermine the moral responsibility of the individual. The Home Secretary agreed that ‘in a free society there are few things more important than to sustain the sense of individual responsibility’, but that this argument can only be accepted ‘if one is convinced that society will not be harmed by so doing.’ This is the dilemma faced on many issues even today namely, when should the rights of individuals take precedence over the collective concerns and interests of wider society. <p> The Home Secretary asked the question ‘can we be certain that homosexual conduct between consenting adults is not a source of harm to others’ and raised his concern ‘that a homosexual group may tend to draw in and corrupt those who are led by curiosity or weakness into homosexual society.’ In practice this fear turned out to be much exaggerated, as only those with a homosexual inclination are likely to be interested in such a practice. He was also worried that there was ‘a very large section of the population who strongly repudiate homosexual conduct and whose moral sense would be offended by an alteration of the law which would seem to imply approval or tolerance of what they regard as a great social evil.’ Therefore, on this basis, the Home Secretary concluded that the Government ‘would not be justified in proposing legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.’ However he did express his personal concern for the problems created by blackmail, and whether a prison term was appropriate for the ‘redemption’ of those convicted of homosexual offences. The country would have to wait almost a decade before the government of the day reached a different conclusion on this matter. <p> The Labour front bench MP Anthony Greenwood spoke on behalf of the opposition. He was reassured that nobody was suggesting ‘relaxing the law on homosexual offences involving males under 21 years of age. I do not think that anybody would press for a relaxation of the law in that direction.’ But of course, this was precisely the activity for which Alan Turing was convicted. One female MP put the matter succinctly ‘when a man of 21 and over goes to a young fellow of 18, the younger can say at present that this is a crime as well as a sin. He will no longer have this reinforcement behind him. The tempter will be able to say to him - it is all right, Parliament has approved it.’ In time she would be proven right. <p> Greenwood went on to suggest that ‘what we have to decide is whether men who, for a reason we do not understand - which may be hereditary, environmental or physical, practise homosexuality, should live their lives under the shadow of the law and at the mercy of the blackmailer’. He concluded that ‘this state of affairs cannot be seriously justified. Life is harsh enough for these people without society adding to their burden. The fact that the law is largely unenforced, and, indeed, largely unenforceable, is certainly no reason for retaining it.’ He did however rather spoil this enlightened outlook by adding ‘It seems to me that one is as likely to cure a homosexual of his perversion by sending him to an all-male prison as one is likely to cure a drunkard by incarcerating him in a brewery.’ <p> One MP clarified how a private activity managed to come to the attention of the authorities by pointing out that ‘the evidence is almost invariably obtained by one or other of the parties turning what is called Queen's evidence and in consideration for not being himself prosecuted giving evidence against his partner. It may be considered as somewhat objectionable that in these circumstances a conviction should depend upon the evidence of an accomplice.’ This should be borne in mind when assuming all homosexuals were victims of this law, when in fact quite a few were collaborators in it. The MP also highlighted a surprising statistic that only one eighth of convictions for homosexual offences were between adults over 21 in private. During the debate an estimate was given that there were about 500,000 practicing homosexuals in the country, but only a 100 or so were convicted of homosexual activity with another male over 21 in private each year. As there was realistically only a very slim chance of an individual being convicted of this offence, it was argued that the law provided little in the way of a deterrent. <p> An MP who sat on the Wolfenden Committee pointed out the wide disparity in enforcement between different police authorities stating that ‘some chief constables prefer to put the telescope to the blind eye unless some specific complaint is put firmly in front of them. Other chief constables take the view that here is an offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life and, therefore, that they must show the same zeal in following up possible offences as they would in a case of manslaughter’. He also stated that there was a ‘most regrettable tendency to prosecute extremely stale offences. Some of the examples which we give are shocking, of offences disclosed by accident three, four and five years after they were committed.’ Today, of course, the authorities prosecute sexcrimes which were first reported over 50 years later, yet we are supposed to believe that we live in a tolerant and enlightened society. The MP concluded that the justification for a change in the law was ‘to swing the majority of homosexuals, practising and non-practising, on to the side of the law, against those whose preference is for boys and those who offend against public decency.’ <p> Other MPs took a very different view, such as one who believed that ‘humanity would eventually revert to an animal existence if this cult was so allowed to spread that, as in ancient Greece, it overwhelmed the community at large’. Another expressed similar sentiments ‘these unnatural practices, if persisted in, spell death to the souls of those who indulge in them. Great nations have fallen and empires been destroyed because corruption became widespread and socially acceptable.’ This highly alarmist viewpoint has never come anywhere near close to being fulfilled. But it does illustrate the fear mongering and exaggeration, whether through ignorance or design, which often motivates zealots attacking disapproved sexual behaviour. <p> Then, as now, the fear of what might happen to children was raised, One MP expressed the view that ‘I should very much resent any of my children coming into intimate contact with homosexuals, I would do all I can to keep such gentlemen as far away as possible from my own children.’ By children he presumably meant his sons. Another MP conjured up the ancient past by mentioning that the ‘study of the sexual habits of Greece and Rome serves to confirm that homosexual instincts soon make themselves apparent whenever they are given free rein. It is perfectly true that if one adopts a lax attitude towards homosexuality one promotes its growth.’ In fact what did occur was not a growth in homosexuality, but a huge increase in the belief that it was a supposedly normal, and thus acceptable (or even virtuous), sexual activity. <p> This same MP came out with another trope fondly believed at the time that ‘because the homosexual in society has a very difficult place indeed. He becomes against society. He becomes bitter, his mind becomes twisted and distorted because he feels he is not as other men are. It is essential in the interests of the man himself that we should do everything to discourage him. He is always beset by fears of discovery. The more sensitive ones wear a hunted look. They are not happy in their life.’ The MP seemed unable to comprehend that the ‘hunted look’ might be due to the law making homosexual acts criminal. <p> The medical treatment of homosexuals to change there sexual orientation is condemned utterly today. But back then it was seen as a solution as suggested by an MP who found ‘that it was remarkably easy to cure these people with the aid of hormone treatment. By reducing the sexual tension of the individual, this treatment can so suppress it that a reorientation of ideas has time to take place so that sexual desires take a more natural form’. Today, although hormone treatment is deemed unacceptable for homosexuals, it has suddenly become fashionable for kids undergoing ‘gender reassignment’. The agendas may change but the mental confusion still seems to stay the same. <p> A Labour MP, who subsequently became a cabinet minister, declared that the law on homosexuality was ‘obsolete and unjust, mainly because it infringes a basic principle of individual freedom’. He added that ‘I do not believe that the State or the criminal law has any right to interfere with the conduct of the individual, unless that conduct has some effect upon some other people.’ Moreover this MP feared that ‘once we depart from this principle and start arguing that, because we dislike some practice, or because we ourselves think it morally wrong, we should therefore legally prohibit other people from doing it, even though it has no effect upon anyone else, we are on a very slippery slope. This seems to me to be the beginning of all intolerance. It is a road which leads eventually to concentration camps and to the persecution of heretics’. He was quite right, a sane voice floating in a sea of nonsense. With our current obsession with disapproved sexual activities we appear to be heading in the same direction as he feared, but with the added handicap that today’s self styled ‘progressive’ thinkers are inciting the mob, not fighting the injustice. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-29695178837310187022017-02-13T06:32:00.000-08:002017-02-13T06:32:35.050-08:00Gay liberation 1950s styleThe government has recently pardoned over 15,000 men still alive who were convicted of homosexual offences. It is, of course, clearly right to erase from an individual’s criminal record actions which are no longer criminal. However, granting pardons in the way that this has been presented represents a meaningless gesture of political propaganda, the purpose of which is to parade the righteousness of the social orthodoxies of today’s ruling generation, and to unfairly and self righteously stigmatise and condemn previous generations’ attitudes to moral, cultural and social issues as being harsh, insensitive and unfeeling. Unfortunately, there are many men currently in jail who are the victims of today’s political class, with their misplaced notions on appropriate forms of sexual expression. So to set the record straight it is worth examining why previous generations thought it right to criminalise homosexual activity, and to see if current attitudes towards disapproved sexual behaviour are really that superior. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PipsWD0nUWs/WKHDbNTPWHI/AAAAAAAAE8A/FFH6LfULj-wHAS6DnqqtdjTCgXLeukmlQCLcB/s1600/cheers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PipsWD0nUWs/WKHDbNTPWHI/AAAAAAAAE8A/FFH6LfULj-wHAS6DnqqtdjTCgXLeukmlQCLcB/s320/cheers.jpg" width="320" height="247" /></a></div><p> In August 1954 the Conservative government commissioned a committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden to investigate whether the law needed to be changed on homosexuality (and also prostitution), and their findings were published in September 1957. Lord Pakenham in opening the debate on the report in the House of Lords believed that most people would share his view that ‘some forms of conduct are not just abnormal, whether in their psychiatric origins or their social manifestation; they are not just antisocial in the sense that the community considers that it must stop them, but are grievously sinful and are a rejection of the will of God.’ This statement outlines the importance which society then placed in still observing traditional Christian religious moral precepts. <p> He then went on to distinguish the sin itself from the actions of the sinner, and the Committee had to consider what the distinction should be between sin and crime. So the question that needed to be answered was - what are the criteria to determine whether sins should be punished by the criminal law? The committee addressed this question by concluding that ‘the function of the criminal law in so far as it concerns the subjects of this Inquiry is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive and injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are specially vulnerable’. <p> In this regard the Report concluded that ‘we do not believe it to be a function of the law to attempt to cover all the fields of sexual behaviour. Certain forms of sexual behaviour are regarded by many as sinful, morally wrong, or objectionable for reasons of conscience, or of religious or cultural tradition; and such actions may be reprobated on these grounds. But the criminal law does not cover all such actions at the present time; for instance, adultery and fornication’. Thus the committee recommended that ‘the criminal law should not intervene in the private lives of citizens or to seek to enforce a particular pattern of behaviour further than is necessary to carry out the purposes we have outlined.’ <p> Lord Pakenham summarised this as’ if two men are doing wrong together, neither coercing the other nor taking advantage of his weakness, they must not be interfered with by the law unless their behaviour is harmful to a third party.’ The most important word here, which today’s generation of activists would increasingly overlook in policing sexual behaviour, is harmful. Lord Pakenham agreed with the findings of the Report that homosexual relations in private between consenting men over the age of 21 should be decriminalised. But he added the warning that ‘never let it be thought for a moment, that if we bring our law into conformity with what is the general practice in Europe…we are condoning homosexuality. We are doing no such thing…we condemn it as utterly wrongful’. All the evidence from the debate suggested that the distaste felt by Lord Pakenham towards homosexuality was then shared by a significant majority of the general public. <p> There was one dissenting voice on the Committee who was concerned that ‘the presence of adult male lovers living openly and notoriously under the approval of the law is bound to have a regrettable and pernicious effect on the young people of the community’ adding that ‘the more serious phases of such conduct have been recognised by our law as criminal for a continuous period of not less than 400 years’. In contrast, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster thought that the ‘law cannot effectively control such acts without doing more harm to the common good than the acts themselves would do. In that case it may be necessary in the interests of the common good to tolerate without approving such acts’. The problems arising from the threat of blackmail and the use of the police as agent provocateurs were also raised. Both of these evils are still with us. <p> The Archbishop of Canterbury observed that ‘there is a great general moral indignation against homosexual sins because they are unnatural. There is a queer lack of general moral indignation against heterosexual sins, fornication and adultery, because they are supposed to be natural, and therefore, in some sense, less wrong’. The Archbishop believed that the Report was right in that ‘while all existing laws shall remain in force to protect and control those under 21… homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should not come within the ambit of the law’. So, in his view, the law should continue to criminalise homosexual activities such as those engaged in by Alan Turing with a teenage youth. <p> One lord made the point that ‘in the press the idea is put forward that indulging in homosexual occupations is a temptation. It is not a temptation to the normal man in any way at all…to ask him to indulge in homosexuality is to ask him to indulge in what to him is repugnant and disgusting, nothing else.’ This remark addressed the fear of many people of the time that anything proclaimed to be sinful, might in reality be ‘forbidden fruit’ that in practice could be quite enjoyable, since dancing and theatre attendance had once been denounced from the pulpit as sinful. As we now know only those with a homosexual inclination find such activity attractive, it generally has no lasting appeal to heterosexuals, thus the fear of many at the time over the likelihood of the widespread corruption of youth becoming ensnared by involvement in ‘unnatural practices’ turned out to be unfounded. <p> On behalf of the government the Lord Chancellor stated that ‘there can be no prospect of early legislation on this subject’ as it would ‘obviously be a serious step to reverse the provisions of the criminal law which have stood for a long time, and any Government would be bound to think long and carefully before deciding to do so’. He was particularly concerned that decriminalisation ‘would be tantamount to suggesting that there is nothing socially harmful in such behaviour and would inevitably have as its consequence that young people would be encouraged to indulge in it, and that society would be corrupted’. A wholly mistaken view as events would prove, but it does explain that one of the prime motivations for retaining this law was concern for the protection of young people, the same justification that is put forward today for maintaining some of the more intrusive and invasive sexcrime legislation of our time. <p> Given the climate of the time none of the supporters of decriminalisation had anything positive to say about homosexuality, although a number had some sympathy for the predicament which homosexuals faced. One such lord opined that it was ‘a grave moral offence, in that it offends radically the law of nature ordained by God’, but added that ‘toleration by the law is not the same thing as condoning, and that to emphasise the personal and private nature of immoral conduct, is to emphasise the personal and private responsibility of the individual for his own actions.’ As the gay liberation bandwagon rolled on, in time anyone who merely just tolerated homosexuality, instead of enthusiastically endorsing it, would run the risk of being branded as ‘homophobic’. Times were different in those days as the same lord was encouraged by ‘the vigorous public reaction against this recommendation (to decriminalise) as evidence of the instinctive sense of right values in the British public’. Remember, this was from a supporter of decriminalisation. <p> Future thinking was prophesised by one lord when he asked ‘why should the age of consent for homosexuality be fixed at 21 if it is no worse an offence than fornication?’ adding that ‘if the Committee had been logical, it was bound to fix the age of consent, whatever it might be, as the same for all. The only explanation I can see is that in their subconscious minds they had a real conviction that somehow or other this offence is worse in its results than the other.’ It would take parliamentarians almost 50 years before they reached the same conclusion. <p> As for those lords who opposed decriminalisation, their views make interesting reading today. One lord asked whether there ‘is any use sending these people to an ordinary prison where they spread contamination. I believe there should be some form of preventive detention system where they could receive proper medical treatment.’ For those who think we do things differently in these enlightened times, it should be noted that sexcrime prisoners today are still on the receiving end of ‘medical treatment’ to address their behaviour. The same lord rejected the argument put forward by some that ‘more harm can be done to the community by normal sexual intercourse outside of marriage than by homosexualism’ on the grounds that ‘one of the causes of the downfall of many ancient civilisations was the prevalence of homosexualism and its tolerance, with most damaging moral and physical effects upon the population.’ One of the physical effects of decriminalisation would be that thousand of young homosexual men would die of Aids as a consequence of their extreme promiscuous behaviour. Another lord addressed the question as to why ‘adultery and fornication are not criminal offences, so why should homosexuality be? The law answers that natural sin is different from unnatural vice. Natural sin is, of course, deplorable, but unnatural vice is worse; because, as the law says, it strikes at the integrity of the human race.’ Not a point of view you hear very much about these days. <p> One bishop disagreed with his archbishop on decriminalisation declaring that ‘there is no more baneful or contagious an influence in the world than that which emanates from homosexual practice. It makes a life of leprosy.’ The bishop agreed with the Lord Chancellor that ‘homosexuals can be made, they are not only born. There are far more manufactured than most people have any conception of, and they need protection. So homosexuals should be kept on a leash to prevent them from practising homosexual vice’. All the evidence today suggests that the bishop is wrong on this and that homosexuals are indeed born that way. The bishop concluded by proclaiming that people ‘would not have the general lines of the law altered, not only for the sake of homosexuals themselves but also for the sake of protecting other people from their predatory soliciting, and to protect men from being made into homosexual addicts and then let loose on the world with their predatory corruption’. <p> The fear expressed here by the bishop implies that young people might find that they enjoy homosexual experiences if they ever got a chance to try them out. This is in contrast, to today’s vocal fearmongers who proclaim that if young people experience sexual activity of any kind they will be traumatised for life, and will turn to drugs, alcohol, self harm, criminal activity and numerous other deleterious behaviours as a consequence. With regard to teenagers the fears of both camps are lacking in any real evidence, and what limited research has been carried out has shown such fears to be without foundation. Those who promote a contrary view invariably do so for religious, financial or political reasons. It is strange that these self appointed guardians of what constitutes appropriate sexual behaviour argue that sexual activity by teenagers below the age of consent must always be damaging, but never appear to question the licentiousness of wider society which sees the same behaviour as a fulfilling and enjoyable recreational pastime for those over the age of consent. <p> The truth is that the authorities today, and also much of the mainstream media, are just as confused, repressed and repressive in understanding the impact of disapproved sexual expression as were their lordships back in the 1950s. At that time the irrational fear was that the young might succumb to the temptation of an illicit deviancy which needed to be suppressed by the law and moralistic guardians. Today the irrational fear is that the young will be permanently mentally scarred by biologically normal sexual activity which needs to be heavily policed by the law and the welfare authorities. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-75906482729722605432017-02-02T08:00:00.000-08:002017-02-02T08:00:11.309-08:00Britain’s injustice system part 4 – viewing indecent images Most politically correct liberals appear to harbour the delusion that the European Human Rights Convention provides British citizens with protection against government action that would seek to destroy their rights through unjust legislation. In fact the Convention has proved to be almost useless in stopping the erosion of their rights as individual citizens. This has been particularly the case with recent sexcrime legislation which has in theory criminalized just about every male in the country over the age of ten. Their individual rights on personal relationships and privacy have been steamrollered over through a combination of paranoid legislative overkill, cultural conformity, political groupthink and the appeasement of mob justice and strident feminism. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E5eZLuknYV0/WJNXZvdMx_I/AAAAAAAAE24/QYcWAgjJpN0v1AQPniMJlc7r585TScTrwCLcB/s1600/axelle2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E5eZLuknYV0/WJNXZvdMx_I/AAAAAAAAE24/QYcWAgjJpN0v1AQPniMJlc7r585TScTrwCLcB/s320/axelle2.jpg" width="320" height="209" /></a></div><p> One such legal minefield covers the viewing of what are termed ‘indecent’ images. As often happens with deserving causes which over time become corrupted, the original justification for introducing legislation was well intentioned, in that it sought the protection of children against those who were clearly seeking to harm or exploit them. The original source of these measures was contained in a Private Members Bill sponsored by the Conservative MP Cyril Townsend which became the Protection of Children Act 1978. It was prompted by a nationwide petition against the sexual exploitation of children organised by the anti-pornography campaigner Mary Whitehouse. <p> In a parliamentary debate Mr Townsend outlined the reasons why he considered new legislation was needed to protect children. He believed that the photographing of children in Britain for ‘pornographic purposes’ was on the increase, but that the police were ‘inhibited’ from taking action by the then state of the law. He claimed that ‘sophisticated operators, well versed in the law’s confusions’ were able to photograph children engaged in sexual activity and escape prosecution with impunity, since ‘they are not so stupid as to lay a finger on a child’ themselves. He further added that ‘careful research shows that to all intents and purposes those who take obscene photographs of children, without assaulting them or touching them, are not being prosecuted, because of the great uncertainty of the law.’ Mr Townsend recognised that the vast majority of child pornography on sale in Britain was imported from abroad, and that it was not sold openly but ‘under the counter’. Nevertheless, he claimed that home produced material of this kind was on the increase and thus it was necessary to tackle the problem. <p> With regard to the wording of the Bill Mr Townsend believed that it was right that ‘the courts should decide what is indecent rather than that Parliament should attempt to define that word too precisely’. Unfortunately, this highly unsatisfactory vagueness of definition would ultimately lead to serious problems and injustices. Nevertheless, Mr Townsend did have a stab at defining indecent himself ‘as anything which an ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting and revolting’, adding that ‘I do not think for a moment that a jury would apply those words to the sort of shot that a grandmother might take of a grandchild on a rug before the fire. Of course, I have nothing against nudity as such’. Such optimism about the reasonableness of those enforcing the law on this subject would in time prove to be utterly groundless in the face of the hysteria that has grown over paedophilia, and of the paranoid zealots with a self appointed mission to combat it wherever the panic might take them. <p> Mr Townsend’s bill did not criminalize the possession of child pornography or indecent images of children, however defined. The wording of the Bill was that a criminal act would be committed only by any person who takes an indecent photograph of a child, or who possesses such material ‘with a view to production’, which in the Act itself was changed to ‘with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others’. So it is clear that the intended target of this legislation was not individuals who obtained this material for their own personal use, but instead those who were engaged in the production and/or distribution of it to others. Thus the Act would catch not only those who produced such material in this country, but also anyone caught distributing items smuggled from overseas, the main source according to police. The maximum penalty for any offence under the Act was three years imprisonment, which Mr Townsend considered to be a heavy one sufficient to deter those who might be tempted into the production or distribution of this material. The definition of a child was anyone under the age of 16, as this was the age of consent. <p> During the parliamentary debate the Home Office minister expressed a degree of scepticism over the need for the proposed legislation. He pointed out that under the Obscene Publications Act, the importation of ‘hardcore’ material could be seized by HM Customs, and anyone caught distributing it could receive a three year prison sentence. The minister did however acknowledge that ‘obscenity’ had a much higher threshold than ‘indecency’ and that the legality of ‘soft pornography’ involving children was somewhat unclear. However, he concluded that cases of pornography involving children where no criminal charges at all are possible were likely to be rare, and he rejected the widespread public assumption ‘that there is no law protecting children from exploitation in this way’. Finally the minister acknowledged that the power of search and seizure being proposed was much wider than that granted to the police in other legislation, and recognised that MPs would be ‘always concerned with the infringement of personal liberties and are certainly concerned about such powers from the civil liberties point of view’. The minister’s optimism over MPs concerns on individual civil liberties would not be sustained by events once the great paedophile panic moved into gear. <p> During the debate one MP summarised the objectives of the Bill as enabling ‘all those who had taken the photograph, reproduced it, distributed it and retailed it would become liable’ to prosecution. So no talk here of criminalising the person who purchased it. Several MPs questioned whether there was ever likely to be a public consensus on what might be considered ‘indecent’. A female Labour MP attempted a definition of indecent as’ ‘anything that is likely to impair the natural development of a child's sexuality and to impose on it a degree of precociousness or false development, (which) clearly precludes the baby on the mat or children on beaches. Indeed nudity is not necessarily sexual in context’. <p> Many MPs considered that the focus of this legislation should be the ending of ‘loopholes’ in the law which appeared to allow the photographing of children engaged in sexual activities. Some MPs deplored the increase in the availability of pornography during the previous decade and the rise of ‘permissiveness’, and were reassured that ‘British laws on obscenity are already more rigorous than those in nearly every other Western nation, and certainly tougher than those on the Continent.’ All the MPs who spoke supported the aims of Mr Townsend’s Bill. However, none of them advocated the criminalising of individuals possessing this material for their own personal and private use, or that the definition of ‘indecency’ should include innocent depictions of nudity. <p> The first major tightening of the law on ‘indecent’ images of children came with the Criminal Justice Act 1988 when the simple possession of such material became a criminal offence. In a parliamentary debate on the Bill the Home Secretary Douglas Hurd justified this measure on the ground that ‘child pornography victimises the children who are exploited by it, and I am afraid that it feeds the instincts which give rise to sexual abuse. It is already an offence to take, show or distribute indecent photographs. We are persuaded that it would be justified to criminalise simple possession in the hope of stamping out this degrading trade.’ The maximum fine for possession under the Act amounted to about £5000 in today’s money. <p> Predictably, the Home Secretary provided no evidence to back up his claims. There was no mention of the infringement of personal liberties which Home Office ministers had previously been concerned about, as they had now been converted from a position of scepticism over the need for this kind of legislation, to one of outright support to strengthen it. In so doing they handed to the police an enormous power to invade the private domain of citizens, considerably eroding their civil liberties as individuals. The number of people involved in production and distribution of this material is likely to have been very small, but the numbers who risked being investigated for possession could be huge, given the vague and open ended definition of ‘indecent’. The Bill included a significant number of other criminal justice measures that appeared at the time to be of much more concern to MPs. During the debate only two MPs raised this issue, voicing their support to criminalise possession, both motivated by the publicity arising from furore over numerous false sexual abuse medical diagnoses in Cleveland, before the true facts emerged in the subsequent inquiry and report. <p> A proposed amendment to define indecency as ‘a photograph of a child shall be deemed to be indecent for the purposes of this Act where its production appears to the court to have involved the exploitation for sexual purposes of a child’ did not make it into the Act. It might have saved a lot of trouble if it had. During the parliamentary debate a Home Office minister declared that ‘for a decade we have had a law dealing with indecent photographs, films and videos, and there is no evidence that it has caused the courts any problems… of interpretation of the word indecent. There has certainly never been any suggestion that an individual member of a family has ever been prosecuted or persecuted in any way for taking innocent snapshots of his children’. However, this hopelessly naive and simplistic outlook ignores the fact that this legislation related to production and distribution and thus would only have affected a very tiny minority, an illegal activity in which an ordinary family would be most unlikely to ever become involved in, unlike possession of a very broadly defined ‘indecent’ image. <p> From 1994 it became an offence to possess a so called ‘pseudo photographs’ of a child, defined as ‘an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph’. From 2001 the maximum sentence for possession of an indecent image increased from six months imprisonment to five years, and for production and distribution, to ten years. In 2003 the definition of a child was raised from 16 years to 18 years. From 2010 it became illegal to own any picture, including cartoons, depicting a child participating in sexual activities, or depictions of any sexual activity in the presence of a child. By any rational standard all of these measures are clearly either paranoid, invasive, oppressive, crackpot or draconian, or a combination of these. <p> This legislation charts the position of the Home Office, from one in which there was scepticism over the need to target producers and distributors, to one in which the most vindictive sentences and gross invasion of individual privacy is warranted against those who do no more than view an image deemed by the prosecuting authorities to be ‘indecent’. What is puzzling, and an indictment of our society, is that with only a few honourable exceptions, neither conservatives, nor liberals, nor those in the ‘middle ground’, nor the intelligentsia, nor the great mass of ordinary people, seem in the least bit concerned about the enormity of this invasion of individual liberty and privacy, which in practice has done absolutely nothing to protect any child from harm or exploitation. They will only wake up when they get an early morning knock on the door as did the hapless and hypocritical Patrick Rock, one time advisor to David Cameron, who discovered to his horror that the legal monstrosity he had helped create, suddenly attacked and devoured him. He forgot to remember that the authorities prosecuting sexcrimes are only interested in obtaining convictions, not justice. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-38932371909149759982017-01-03T07:34:00.000-08:002017-01-03T07:34:32.824-08:00Social cohesion bluesThe report of the Casey review has recently been published, commissioned by the government to 'investigate integration and opportunity in isolated and deprived communities'. This is bureaucratic speak asking why, in many inner city areas of Britain, there is less social cohesion than there used to be. The report makes some interesting points but fails to get to grips with the problems it was tasked with investigating, or how the problems identified were allowed to develop in the first place. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-67A0G2k3AX4/WGvEe1vqxuI/AAAAAAAAEpk/24Ovv8hCd3MzftiTcgaHxNsC6cjFjEZjACLcB/s1600/social%2Bcohesion.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-67A0G2k3AX4/WGvEe1vqxuI/AAAAAAAAEpk/24Ovv8hCd3MzftiTcgaHxNsC6cjFjEZjACLcB/s320/social%2Bcohesion.jpeg" width="320" height="243" /></a></div><p> A significant part of the report deals with the Muslim population, and for a government report some of findings are quite hard hitting. For example, references are made to 'regressive' cultural practices which have a particularly detrimental impact on Muslim women. It discovered that in one northern town all but one of Asian councillors had married a wife from Pakistan, and that 80% of babies born in Bradford of Pakistani ethnicity had at least one parent born outside the UK. Thus the report highlights the phenomenon of the creation of a first generation in every generation with second, third and subsequent generations being joined by foreign born partners, with children in each new generation growing up with a foreign born parent. <p> To be fair, the British politically correct establishment has never tolerated the more barbarous practices that sometimes occur within this community, such as honour killings, female genital mutilation and forced marriages. With the rise in feminism criticism of these practices has rightly become more vocal. But in the final analysis they only impact on Muslim communities themselves, and then mostly on women. If they were all abandoned it would likely make only a marginal difference in improving social cohesion with the white majority. This is because the social life of most Muslims revolves around their local mosque, whereas for most whites their socializing takes place through secular institutions and venues that, when fuelled by alcohol and with the unchaperoned mixing of the sexes, would be at variance with traditional Islamic values. <p> Nonetheless the report has served some purpose in identifying arranged marriages, involving spouses from the Indian sub continent, as a crucial factor in increasing the ethnic population in British towns and cities, and thus leading to a gradual breakdown in social cohesion because of the ever growing numbers. Arranged marriages have never been part of British culture and there can be no justification for allowing the opened ended importation of foreign born spouses into this country through this practice, leading as it does to long term societal damage. In many cases it is likely to be difficult distinguishing between forced and arranged marriages, many of which appear to take place between close relatives such as cousins, creating problems of inbreeding. <p> If the government was serious about addressing the cause of breakdown in social cohesion they would immediately prohibit the practice of arranged marriages of British citizens with foreign born spouses. Arranged marriages would not need to be prohibited, but they would need to be controlled by either confining them to between British citizens, or the couple would have to leave Britain permanently, and renounce all claims to British citizenship for themselves and any children. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-14165578679040400522016-12-10T08:23:00.002-08:002016-12-10T08:23:36.487-08:00A brief history of political correctnessThe dominant ideological narrative of the ruling establishment that has grown incrementally over recent decades in western countries has come to be known as political correctness. This term was originally coined as a term of abuse by right-wingers, but it has since become a shorthand for an agenda and system of values that have been adopted by the activist left. This post attempts to outline and analyse these values and to speculate on whether it is still possible for them to be replaced by an alternative political outlook. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FHGWQMH6s-4/WEwr-LcYFCI/AAAAAAAAEik/cbN676R4wuoinpH2A6Bb4753kJQWU_eAgCLcB/s1600/political%2Bcorrectness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FHGWQMH6s-4/WEwr-LcYFCI/AAAAAAAAEik/cbN676R4wuoinpH2A6Bb4753kJQWU_eAgCLcB/s320/political%2Bcorrectness.jpg" width="320" height="214" /></a></div><p> Until the mid 1950s the main divide in British politics was based on economics. The right broadly supported free enterprise and low taxes whilst the left promoted varying degrees of state control and increased public spending. Class was also an important factor in politics with Labour tending to represent the interests of the working class and the Conservatives that of the middle class. Cultural and social issues did not appear prominently in the mainstream political discourse. Women had been given the vote on an equal basis to men by the end of the 1920s, and there was little agitation for government to pursue issues of social reform, or to become involved in the personal lifestyle or behaviour of its citizens, so long as they stayed within the law. <p> The first break with this outlook came on education when the Labour party started to support the creation of comprehensive schools, and the abolition of grammar schools and selective education. It was argued that selection at eleven was unfair as it branded as failures for life the majority of children who took the eleven plus exam. Moreover, it was also claimed to be socially divisive as it provided working class children with an inferior education to that of the middle class. For those on the left the main concern shifted away from providing educational excellence towards egalitarianism, in which the encouragement of academic ability became subordinate to social engineering. <p> This period was long before the left openly started to play the victim card or even before they started to coin pejorative words in order to silence their opponents. But as their confidence grew, and as grammar schools were abolished, they branded supporters of selective schools as 'elitist'. In the liberals warped parallel universe it became 'elitist' for middle class parents to want a sound academic education for their children. Instead of' 'grammar schools for all' as promised, what most children received instead was an education on a par with that provided by secondary moderns, but without the discipline. The only exceptions were better off parents who could buy their way into the catchment areas of successful schools. So instead of selection by ability we ended up with selection by parental income, resulting in a noticeable drop in social mobility. It was not unreasonable to have as an objective the provision of a sound education for all pupils, but not at the expense of dragging down children with academic ability, particularly those from a working class background. <p> The next pillar to crumble was national identity and self government through the growth of various supra-national projects. The most meddlesome were the European Economic Community (later European Union) and the European Court of Human Rights. To begin with support for these organisations came from the broad centre ground of British politics. The original six countries that joined the EEC, also known as the Common Market, enjoyed spectacular growth in the 1950s and 1960s. British governments, on the other hand, were criticised for their stop-go economic policies. Joining the EEC was seen as a panacea for boosting economic growth and the standard of living. <p> Politicians and the media were beguiled by the economic success of the six EEC countries. In their eagerness to be part of the action they overlooked the small print of 'ever closer union'. Britain joined in 1973 and the British people voted to remain in the 1975 referendum which was almost entirely confined to economic arguments. The Tories were always more enthusiastic about membership than Labour until the late 1980s following the Bruges speech of Margaret Thatcher. At about the same time Labour became more favourably disposed when the then EU President Jacques Delors pointed out that the EU could deliver social and employment rights which the Tories were blocking. Many Tory MPs interpreted this as introducing socialism 'through the back door'. <p> During the period of Tony Blair's premiership EU membership became a cornerstone of his 'progressive' agenda and opponents were dismissed as 'Little Englanders'. Left wing activists fondly believe in the moral superiority of international institutions empowered to control what they see as the rampant ugliness of nationalistic sentiments. The power and reach of the EU continued to expand, a process that in theory could continue indefinitely, leaving national governments as nothing more than mere agents or cyphers of this supra-national behemoth. <p> Liberals had come to realise that once an EU law had become established it became almost impossible to reverse it. Thus they could impose their social and equalities agenda through the EU bureaucracy rather than the more risky public and parliamentary debate route, which might later be overturned with a change of government. The end objective was government and control by a morally superior technocratic elite leaving only the facade of democratic accountability. Greater co-operation between European countries and the avoidance of war are noble objectives, but wilfully destroying nation states, parliamentary democracy and national identity is most certainly not the best way to achieve them. <p> With the arrival into Britain of large number of third world immigrants from 1948, liberals were presented with a huge opportunity to demonstrate their moral superiority. Yet to begin with it was Labour MPs who first flagged up concern about 'coloured' immigration, as it was their constituents who were first impacted by this new development. The Conservative government of the time casually dismissed their concerns on the grounds that the numbers were low, it was believed that most would return home after a few years, and to take action might stir up trouble with Commonwealth leaders. However, following the Notting Hill riots in the late 1950s, the Conservatives finally started to address the matter by removing the automatic right of entry of Commonwealth citizens. For this they were denounced by the Labour leadership, although when Labour achieved power a few years later they tightened entry requirements rather than reverse them. <p> In Government Labour introduced race relations legislation to prevent discrimination on racial grounds for public services. This was the background to Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech where he condemned governments for allowing open ended large scale third world immigration into Britain. For his pains he was sacked from the shadow cabinet by Tory leader Edward Heath for the 'racialist' tone of his speech. By the late 1960s left wing activists had coined the word 'racist' to denounce anyone questioning the wisdom of large scale immigration. To begin with the sin of 'racism' was considered to be based on 'ignorance', later such views became 'reprehensible' until eventually they were deemed 'abhorrent'. This, of course, only applied to white people, when dark skinned people identified with their own kind they were a 'community', but when whites did the same it was odious 'racism'. <p> For the past half century the fight against 'racism' has been at the centre of the politically correct agenda to police public discourse, outlook and behaviour, and to silence opposition. Clearly it is despicable to abuse or harass people because of the colour of their skin, or to deny them access to public services which should be open to all. But this does not mean that the white majority should passively acquiesce in the colonisation of their towns and cities by large numbers of people who are racially, culturally and religiously different, and who for the most part continue to see themselves as separate from the white majority. Nor should those who raise concerns about the transformation of their communities in this way be subject to an orchestrated campaign of vilification. But this is what has happened and politicians of all parties have been complicit in this agenda, which has created enormous problems for the cohesion of our society, not to mention the extra pressures on housing, public services and low skilled employment. To dismiss these concerns as 'hate speech' only demonstrated the extent to which politicians have become out of touch, and in thrall to vocal activists whose objective is the destruction of western civilisation, culture and values. <p> Liberals are very enthusiastic about the European Charter of Human Rights (ECHR) believing that it protects human rights against pesky democratically elected governments eager to take them away from unsuspecting citizens. However, for over 15 years after the UK signed up to the ECHR the British legal system was able persecute and harass homosexuals for their private sexual behaviour. Apparently, nobody at the time thought that this contradicted the principles of the ECHR. They were probably correct to reach this conclusion as the right to a private life is circumscribed by numerous exemptions one of which is 'the protection of morals'. These exemption are so wide that almost any law can be passed and still stay within the principles of the ECHR. <p> Judges are no less fallible than politicians, and their decisions will invariably be influenced by the prevailing ethos of the time. Today the dominant establishment mindset is politically correct, but back in the 1950s and early 1960s it was moralistically conservative. So until 1967, when the British parliament reformed the law on homosexuality, it would be true to say that homosexuals as a group were genuine victims of oppression. And it is this sense of victimhood, which liberals have continued to milk for all it is worth, long after the victimisations of the favoured group has ended. <p> Once homosexual activities had been legalised homosexuals started to proselytize for equality. Since the state should keep out of its citizen's bedrooms it was right that the age of consent should be equalised. But the gay lobby didn't stop there but instead demanded that homosexuality must be promoted in schools as a valid lifestyle, that they could adopt children on the same basis as married couples and, in time, that they could marry one another, despite being unable to procreate, ignoring the obvious fact that the raising of children in a stable background was the traditional justification for society's recognition of couples entering into a life long partnership with one another. But matters did not end there, it became a criminal offence to criticise homosexual behaviour, now deemed in PC speak to be the 'hate crime' of 'homophobia'. To criticise the homosexual lifestyle rendered you unfit to adopt children, guest house owners could no longer decline entry into their homes of openly homosexual couples, or a bakery refuse homosexual propaganda messages on their cakes. So within a few decades society moved from persecuting homosexuals to persecuting those who failed to voice support for their sexual lifestyle. With the rise in feminism the persecution of homosexual men was gradually replaced by the demonization of male heterosexuality. <p> In the decade after the second world war there was some clearly unjustified overt discrimination against women, for example being paid less for exactly the same work, or being denied a mortgage when a single man in the same situation would have been granted one. There was also quite extensive covert discrimination against women particularly in the jobs market, and women were conspicuously under-represented in many professions outside teaching and nursing. <p> Prevailing attitudes in society were very different to those of today. Many women considered their main role to be that of a housewife, responsible for looking after the home and the upbringing of children, whilst the husband went out to work as the breadwinner. But with the national shortage of labour many women were tempted to join the jobs market to top up their husbands wage, and they were helped by the increased availability of new electrical appliances which removed much of the drudgery from housework. <p> With increasing representation in the workforce women, not unreasonably, began to demand the same career opportunities as men. Given that they were still a minority of the workforce, and many still chose to take a career break to look after children, full equality was never likely to be achieved. But with the introduction of maternity leave, job-sharing, flexible working and other measures, employers and governments attempted to make the working environment for women as convenient as possible. <p> Some of the more strident feminists were not content with this but sought equality of outcome as of right. But they were always strangely selective about the kind of occupations in which they sought equality, invariably cushy or well paid jobs such as the Civil Service, local government, academia, the BBC or the financial sector. When it came to doing the more unpleasant jobs in all kinds of weather requiring hard hats and hi-vis jackets they were strangely absent. They rarely seemed able to find their way to building sites, or to driving heavy commercial vehicles, or emptying wheelie bins or working in the sewers, or clearing vegetation. Women were almost completely absent from the firing line in Afghanistan and Iraq. And in professions in which they were over represented such a teaching, it was very politically incorrect to suggest equal outcomes for men. <p> But feminists did not confine themselves to seeking out privileges in the workplace. They very early on discovered a means of putting men on the defensive through an assault on male heterosexuality. Initially they campaigned against pornography and rape, opining that the former was directly responsible for the latter. They railed against 'sexist' comments and the 'objectification' of women. Male complements about women's' appearance suddenly became defined as sexual harassment. The trope that we are all living in a 'rape culture' became part of our social mythology. Sexcrime trials became rigged giving anonymity to accusers, corroboration was no longer necessary, hearsay evidence was allowed and similar fact trawling by the police became commonplace. Aided and abetted by children's charities and the gutter press a paedophile hysteria was fanned with the aim of demonising men as predatory deviants who could never be trusted in the company of children. <p> There should be no doubt that the law should take a tough line with genuinely predatory men who use or threaten violence to achieve sexual favours, and against sex pests who can never take no for an answer. But to brand all sexual advances initiated by men as harassment, which must be addressed by the courts, is to involve the state in the policing of personal relationships which are best left to individuals themselves. <p> After decades of advancement, with only minimal challenge by those in authority, unchecked political correctness now began to enter the realms of the ridiculous and absurd in a search for new causes to adopt. Thus we have the nonsense of 'transgender' rights, and safe spaces for students who might be traumatised by hearing views which challenge the PC brainwashing they have been exposed to since birth. Since there are only two sexes, male and female, it follows that any individual who attempts to physically change their biological sex must be suffering from a serious mental illness for which the best remedy is psychiatric help. Certainly anyone who allows their body to be mutilated, or injected with the hormones of the opposite sex, meets this definition. With regard to the safe spaces issue this is merely an extreme attempt to stifle debate and should be strongly resisted in no uncertain terms. <p> Although the full horrors of political correctness have take decades to fully develop they can be rolled back relatively quickly. The first step has already been taken in the vote to leave the European Union. Parliament should also assert that the British Supreme Court is just that and there should be no right of appeal to any extra terrestrial legal body. The new administration has made some positive remarks about the reintroduction of grammar schools, and moves to this end should be introduced as quickly as possible in those areas were there is parental demand. All 'hate crime' legislation should be repealed and laws against discrimination should be confined to the provision of public services to which it is reasonable that all should have access. The motivation of those promoting the political correctness agenda is not a concern for their more vulnerable fellow citizens, but instead a desire to parade themselves as morally superior to others, or virtue signallers, a brilliant new phrase which perceptively exposes these self righteous controlling hypocrites for what they are. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-1740591655835016802016-11-04T08:44:00.001-07:002016-11-04T08:44:12.956-07:00Ched Evans - licentiousness v puritanism The bedroom activities of the footballer Ched Evans in a Welsh small town hotel demonstrate the confusion in our society about sexual behaviour. On the one hand there is the casual licentiousness of Evans himself, not untypical of the large segment of the population pejoratively labelled as chavs. In contrast there is the puritanical agenda of vocal and influential middle class feminists, eager to police and demonise male heterosexual expression. They came into serious conflict in that hotel bedroom. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WZ4upYD3qw4/WBysvNAKIKI/AAAAAAAAET4/2BuhxrB-3u84m3ZRmD3WOLSC4Sp6vNe0ACLcB/s1600/ched%2Bevans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WZ4upYD3qw4/WBysvNAKIKI/AAAAAAAAET4/2BuhxrB-3u84m3ZRmD3WOLSC4Sp6vNe0ACLcB/s320/ched%2Bevans.jpg" width="193" height="320" /></a></div><p> The facts of the case have been well publicised. A football chum of Evans picks up a 19 year old young lady in a kebab shop in the early hours of the morning. She agrees to go back with him to a hotel room booked by Evans. Football friend phones Evans that he has pulled a bird for sex at the hotel. Shortly afterwards Evans arrives at the hotel to join in the fun. In other words, an everyday example of no strings promiscuity which the British working class seems no longer to have any qualms about. <p> Unfortunately for Evans the young lady had left her handbag in the kebab shop and reported the loss to the police. However, in 21st century Britain the police no longer confine themselves to investigating crimes. They also proactively enforce the agenda of zealous feminists to track down and pursue any example of inappropriate sexual advances by heterosexual men. The police discovered that the young lady had been drinking and that she had no memory of the night before. In pursuit of their priority agenda the police then quizzed Evans and his pal about what they were doing in the hotel bedroom. Instead of telling the police to mind their own business they both admitted to consensual sexual activity with the young lady. The pair were then charged with rape on the grounds that the young lady had been drinking and thus could not consent to sex. Evans was convicted and received a five years prison sentence, but his friend was acquitted. <p> Evans served 30 months of his sentence and was then let out on licence. His hopes of resuming his football career were dashed as a result of a vociferous campaign on social media by strident feminists, who insisted that a convicted rapist was an unacceptable role model for young people, who should never be allowed to play professional football again. As a result of this continuing media storm job offers with several clubs were withdrawn. In contrast a former Manchester City footballer who was convicted of dangerous driving, speeding at almost twice the limit in an urban area and resulting in the deaths of two people, has since his release played football professionally. He is reported as having shown no remorse, but needless to say there has been no orchestrated campaign by the usual suspects to question his suitability as a role model. In contrast to the savage sentence handed down to Evans this footballer received a mere 16 months for his reckless, dangerous and lethal behaviour. <p> Evans himself consistently protested his innocence claiming that the young lady had consented. This proclamation of innocence was held against him by the feminists as it indicated his lack of remorse, and failure to accept responsibility for his actions and the damage that he had caused to his 'victim'. It should be remembered that the young lady never claimed that she had been raped, only that she had no memory of the encounter due to the amount of alcohol she had consumed. <p> Evans appealed his conviction but was unsuccessful. However he retained the support of his family, his girlfriend's family and a large number of football fans. Eventually, after release from prison the Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed that new evidence made his conviction unsafe, and referred the case to the Appeal Court who this time ordered a retrial. At his second trial the jury, which included seven women, unanimously found him not guilty after a relatively short deliberation. <p> In the past when there has been a miscarriage of justice, left wing activists and politicians rejoice at the release of the innocent, and denounce in no uncertain terms the behaviour of the police and condemn the corruption inherent in the judicial system. Witness the long campaigns to free the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four. But in the case of Ched Evans the reverse has occurred, they claim that the justice system has failed, what they falsely continue to describe as, the 'victim'. <p> Some feminists have reacted with outrage against the acquittal claiming that it has set back rape trials thirty years. Vera Baird, notoriously hard line sex crime campaigner whose day job is a police commissioner, fears that rape trials could now 'become inquisitions into a complainant’s sex life'. She pointed out that in Evans’ case, the court of appeal decided it was 'relevant and admissible' that the young lady had engaged in separate sexual encounters with two men, around the time of the Ched Evans incident. On each occasion she had consumed a lot of alcohol, and had been an enthusiastic participant, directing the nature of the sexual activity. She used a similar phrase in encouraging her partner on both occasions to be more forcible, and with each of them sought a particular sexual position. Evans had previously claimed that she had behaved in a similar manner with him. Since this was regarded as her normal sexual preference, it supported his case that she had also consented with him. Baird argues that this 'similar evidence' is an abuse of the legal system as it lowers the threshold to the very strong presumption against quizzing complainants about their sexual history. <p> Whilst it is clearly right that the sexual history of either the defendant or the accuser should not be routinely called in evidence in rape trials, it does not follow that it should always be excluded. There are clear instances, such as in the Evans case, were the interests of justice are best served, when previous relevant and similar sexual activity must be presented to the jury, to allow them to reach a decision on the full facts of the case. So there should be no change in the law, as many women Labour MPs are now seeking, to confine sexual history evidence to only when the similar conduct is unusual and out of the ordinary. This would be far too restrictive and would put the defendant at a serious disadvantage in effectively challenging the case presented by the prosecution. If anything the current criteria on revealing previous sexual history should be broadened to ensure that relevant background facts are not withheld from the jury. <p> One commentator described the inherent injustice of this case as 'exposing the absurdity of an accusation being brought by the state, when evidence to support its central premise - lack of consent - is itself sorely lacking. Accounts of events are given by the two accused, but as the law allows the state to assume that someone too drunk to remember was likely to be too drunk to consent, the onus is then on the accused to 'prove' their accounts are correct, a complete reversal of the burden of proof.' <p> Many commentators have denounced the behaviour of Ched Evans as deplorable and reprehensible. They may well have a point, but the reality is that these days many people appear to have no problem in seeking casual sex, and that the media in its various forms frequently affirms this outlook. Some pundits have pointed out that the behaviour of the young lady in question was little different to the two footballers, so it is a little one-sided to heap all the censure on the men, since it takes two to tango. Also, the same feminists who denounce Evans as predatory are silent in the face of the extreme promiscuity demonstrated by many homosexual men. But of course to question their lifestyle would be 'homophobic' and that would never do. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-32434145151858368462016-10-20T10:34:00.000-07:002016-10-20T10:34:18.986-07:00Tory rethink on grammar schoolsAfter decades of appeasement to leftist sentiment the Tories are showing signs that they might be seriously intending to introduce new grammar schools in England. The Conservative Party has for a long time been in thrall to a 'progressive' education establishment, which is more interested in social engineering and egalitarianism than in ensuring that schools deliver a sound academic education to those who would most benefit from it. So would the revival of grammar schools be to the advantage of all pupils, or would it mean 'turning the clock back' as some critics have claimed? <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y8UuwNP0Up4/WAkAC9UHBOI/AAAAAAAAEOM/p4gvXM6EtAIZ2CbobO4A4z2uj8z1Ot_yQCLcB/s1600/2154410586.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y8UuwNP0Up4/WAkAC9UHBOI/AAAAAAAAEOM/p4gvXM6EtAIZ2CbobO4A4z2uj8z1Ot_yQCLcB/s320/2154410586.jpg" width="320" height="215" /></a></div><p> One such critic is the former head of the schools inspectorate Michael Wilshaw who has opined that opening more grammar schools would be 'a retrograde step' that would damage the prospects of 'disadvantaged' children. He claims that, rather than boosting social mobility, selective education works against the interests of poorer children. He accuses grammar schools of being 'stuffed full' of middle class children thereby reducing the opportunities of those from the working class. Other critics have condemned academic selection as 'writing off' pupils at too early an age, which can create a sense of inferiority and failure that lasts throughout life. <p> It is certainly true that if you cream off about a quarter of the brightest pupils into grammar schools, then those who are left behind will clearly not benefit directly from a selective education system. However, there will still be a collective benefit to the nation if the most academically inclined children are taught separately, in a supportive environment free from the distraction, hindrance and sometimes disruption of their less studious peers. Through selection they are much more likely to make progress, achieve better qualifications, move on to higher education and be better able to fill the more mentally demanding jobs which are essential for the effective functioning of a nation. Everybody gains from a well educated elite who are able to make a disproportionate contribution to raising the wealth and outcomes of society as a whole. <p> On social mobility all the evidence suggests that this has significantly declined since the 1960s when most of the grammar schools were abolished and became comprehensive. This is because selective education provided a route by which the brightest working class children could be initiated into a middle class lifestyle, outlook and ethos, and away from the educationally constricting background in which they were being raised. Alas, it appears to be the case that most people of working class origin, both children and adults, are generally uninterested and sometimes hostile to more serious or artistic subjects. They appear to be quite content to remain this way and seem to have no great urge to better themselves either educationally, intellectually or culturally. Regarding the concern over a sense of failure, it is the case that we all have to come to terms with failure at one time or another, and to try and protect children from this experience is not helping them to adapt to the realities of life in the long run. <p> It is to be hoped that the Tories keep their nerve and do all they can to increase the number of grammar schools in England. However, given that a significant number of Conservative MPs appear to be opposed to their expansion, the current parliamentary arithmetic means that the government might have a difficult time driving through this most necessary reform. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-41946383064203519872016-10-06T11:21:00.000-07:002016-10-06T11:29:14.940-07:00Jimmy Savile - a study in mendacity The former DJ and national celebrity Sir Jimmy Savile died in October 2011. Thousands of people turned out to watch his funeral procession in Leeds. He was hailed as the person who had raised tens of millions of pounds for charity, most particularly the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital. However, a year later he had become the most reviled man in British history. He was demonised as a paedophile who had sexually assaulted countless children and vulnerable people. Politicians and journalists of left, right and centre tripped over themselves in their eagerness to denounce this incarnation of evil. According to the police he had 'groomed the nation in full sight'. In reality, the nation does indeed appear to have been groomed, not by Jimmy Savile but instead by a conspiracy of media manipulators and child protection racketeers. The findings below are based on the forensic skills of the bloggers Anna Raccoon, Moor Larkin and Rabbitaway, who have fearlessly sought out the truth about the allegations against Savile, in contrast to the mainstream media which has largely refused to question the prevailing narrative. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3F5iElDN8cY/V_aX6v1p5EI/AAAAAAAAEIk/mgmMO9oNjW40OHMFueKTeechc5JS2gd2QCLcB/s1600/article-2227128-04D218200000044D-797_634x469.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3F5iElDN8cY/V_aX6v1p5EI/AAAAAAAAEIk/mgmMO9oNjW40OHMFueKTeechc5JS2gd2QCLcB/s320/article-2227128-04D218200000044D-797_634x469.jpg" width="320" height="237" /></a></div><p> As a result of the Savile furore some have claimed that it has encouraged a 'witch hunt' against aging public figures such as Lord Bramall, Leon Brittain, Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Jimmy Tarbuck, William Roache and Jim Davidson, by fantasists and compensation seekers. Others claim that the Savile publicity has brought the issue of child sexual abuse out into the open when it had previously been covered up to protect institutions and the powerful and influential in society. This post attempts to shed some light on this subject and to discover if there is an agenda seeking to exploit and denigrate Jimmy Savile's reputation, and if so what its purpose might be. <p> The story began in the 1970s when a young boy, Meirion Jones, witnessed visits of Jimmy Savile to Duncroft School in Staines, Surrey. The boy’s aunt, Margaret Jones, was the headmistress of this approved school. At the time of Savile’s death Meirion Jones was a producer with the BBC <i>Newsnight</i> current affairs TV programme. For some years he had been in contact with former Duncroft pupils on the <i>Friends Reunited</i> website where he had picked up on chatter that Savile had sexually assaulted Duncroft girls during his visits. For some time he had wanted to expose what he considered to be the darker side of Savile, and within a few days of his death Jones was given the green light to put together an expose by <i>Newsnight</i> editor Peter Rippon. <p> <i>Newsnight</i> does not normally deal in celebrity revelations, but on this occasion Peter Rippon was persuaded that there was a public policy interest, as the former Duncroft pupils were claiming that Surrey Police had refused to investigate their claims of sexual assault because Savile was 'too old and infirm.' One of the former pupils, known as Karin, was prepared to go on air with detailed revelations about how she had been sexually assaulted by Savile. Karin had already published an e-book which included veiled accusations against Savile. Peter Rippon was looking for corroboration from other Duncroft pupils (the BBC contacted 60 former pupils for evidence), but he was more concerned about getting confirmation that the police had ended their investigation because Savile was too old to be prosecuted. <p> Eventually Surrey Police revealed that they had investigated the allegations against Savile but no further action was taken because the CPS had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. (It was subsequently discovered that the 'too old and infirm' police letter was a forgery). On hearing this Peter Rippon decided that there was no longer any justification for going ahead with the expose. He also had some concerns about the credibility of Karin, and the apparent collusion between ex-Duncroft pupils on <i>Friends Reunited</i>. Meirion Jones strongly disagreed with this decision believing that Karin was a sufficiently credible witness to justify broadcasting her allegations. However, the decision of Peter Rippon prevailed and the <i>Newsnight</i> Savile feature was shelved. <p> The Surrey Police investigation took place during the 2007-9 period and covered three allegations. The first was that Savile had forced a Duncroft pupil to place her hand on his groin in the TV room, the second that Savile had kissed a choir girl visiting Stoke Mandeville hospital and put his tongue in her mouth, and the third that Savile had engaged in sexual activity with a pupil in a building known as Norman Lodge located in the grounds of Duncroft. Savile denied all the allegations. In the case of the Norman Lodge incident the police accepted that even if the allegation was true the girl was over 16 and the activity was consensual so no offence had been committed. Savile however said that he had never set foot in Norman Lodge and was unaware of its existence. The choir girl at Stoke Mandeville was the sister of one of the Duncroft girls. She refused to co-operate with the police investigation. Savile denied that the incident had ever taken place pointing out that in any case such behaviour would be reckless with so many witnesses. With regard to the TV room allegation Savile denied that this had ever happened, again pointing out that it would also have been impossible with so many witnesses present. The complainant in this case was not the ex-pupil alleged to have been the victim, who did not want any police action, but instead another ex-Duncroft pupil who claimed to have witnessed the event. Margaret Jones, the headmistress at the time confirmed that neither she, nor any of her staff, had received any complaints about Savile arising from his visits. Ten former Duncroft residents were also contacted by Surrey police but none witnessed anything untoward during his visits. Savile was interviewed under caution about the allegations by two police officers. In the interview he is confident and relaxed, stating he had nothing to hide, fully co-operating with the officers, and repeatedly claiming that it would have been impossible to carry out the acts he was accused of as there were always many other people present. Any reasonable and objective observer would conclude that Savile comes across as credible and truthful in this interview. The CPS was clearly correct in concluding that there was insufficient evidence to back up the allegations. <p> During the assembly of the <i>Newsnight </i>feature Meirion Jones hired as a consultant Mark Williams-Thomas, who promotes himself as a child protection expert. Williams-Thomas agreed with Meirion Jones that the allegations against Savile were credible and he set about gathering the material that would be shown in the ITV <i>Exposure</i> programme broadcast in October 2012. He was provided with details of the former Duncroft pupils and others who had contacted Meirion Jones. In the <i>Exposure</i> programme several witnesses made allegations against Savile, the most damaging to his reputation being Wilfred De’Ath, a former BBC producer, Sarah the Stoke Mandeville choir girl, Val and Angie from <i>Top of the Pops</i>, and two former Duncroft pupils, Fiona and Charlotte. Some others were featured (and their claims thoroughly debunked by Moor Larkin) but they were not witnesses to any criminal action and were probably only included to undermine the reputation of Savile and to blacken his name. <p> Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile was probably the most deceitful, dishonest and disreputable programme ever to have been broadcast by a mainstream TV company since, following extensive research on the Anna Raccoon, Moor Larkin and Rabbitaway blogs, the above witnesses appear to be voicing demonstrable fabrications or at best selective exaggerations. It is worth examining in detail how this programme was constructed and why, from beginning to end, it lacks any credibility or honesty. <p> The first defamatory witness was the former BBC producer Wilfred De’ath who claimed he met up with Savile in a Chinese restaurant in central London with a girl of about 12 years old who he had met at a recording of Top of the Pops the previous day. De’ath also claimed that he phoned Savile at The Mascot Hotel in London the following day and Savile volunteered the information that he was in bed with the same 12 year old girl. According to De’ath these events took place in 1965. However at that time Top of the Pops was recorded in Manchester, not London. Savile did appear on De’ath’s radio programme Teen Scene in 1965 but that was also recorded in Manchester. Although Jimmy Savile would have visited London at that time for his Radio Luxembourg radio show he would have had no occasion to meet up with De’ath who worked for the BBC. <p> The programme did fairly point out that De’ath had been imprisoned for fraud, so he was clearly not the most reliable of witnesses. De’ath came to the attention of Exposure through an item in The Oldie published in early 2012 in which he anonymously made the claims that were subsequently repeated in the Exposure programme. Given that it was clearly impossible for the incidents he described to have taken place the only conclusion that can be reached is that they are a complete invention on the part of De’ath. His deceit has been confirmed in the Smith report commissioned by the BBC to investigate the allegations against Savile. <p> We now come to the probably the most damming part of the Exposure programme, the testimony of Val and Angie. Val claimed to be 15 in 1969 when she was introduced to Savile and she met up with him several times during recordings of Top of the Pops, when she alleged they engaged in sexual activity in his dressing room and his camper van parked outside Kings Cross station. Val claimed that the relationship with Savile lasted until 1974, and that she became overawed by his celebrity status and through meeting many famous people. Angie claimed that she met Savile for the first time at Radio Luxembourg in 1968. She alleged that she had sexual intercourse with him when she was still 15 years old, and claimed to have been swept away by his celebrity status. To support her testimony viewers were shown a photo of Savile with a blurred out image of Angie outside Radio Luxembourg’s London office, plus other photos of Savile in indoor settings claimed to be from Angie’s 'private photos', together with an inscription on Savile’s biography allegedly given to her in 1974. <p> For some considerable time after the Exposure broadcast the investigative bloggers named above were of the opinion that Val and Angie were in all probability an invention of Mark Williams-Thomas, since there was no explanation as to how the producers had managed to discover them nearly 45 years after the events. Williams-Thomas declared that 'what I won’t do is give away exactly how I tracked down the women and witnesses because this would expose the very people I said I would protect'. In other words he refused point blank to provide evidence to anybody who might challenge their existence. The faces of Val and Angie are never shown, only back views after they had been provided with wigs. Their comments are voiced over. Both claim to have had a five year relationship with Savile, so it is highly improbable that this could have been kept a secret from their relatives, the supposed reason for the disguise. As teenagers it is difficult to believe that they would not have been eager to boast about their relationship with a national celebrity. It is also difficult to accept that, after such a length of time, both women would coincidently be so fearful to reveal their identities that they had to resort to wigs and a voiceover. <p> However, the BBC Smith report has provided the explanation as to how they were contacted. Williams-Thomas received their details from Louis Theroux, who recorded a programme about Savile a decade or so ago. They had written to Theroux to correct the impression that Savile did not have regular girlfriends and confirmed that neither of them experienced any abuse from Savile, making it clear that their relationships with him had been consensual and that they had stayed on friendly terms with him for some time afterwards. So the evidence of abusive liaisons they gave in the Exposure programme was at complete variance with what they were claiming in their unsolicited letter to Theroux in which they wished to put the record straight. The reason for the wigs and voiceover now becomes obvious, since their families would have known that they enjoyed an amicable relationship with Savile and that they were now telling the very opposite of the true state of affairs. Unfortunately, the Smith report fails to connect the testimony of Val and Angie to the inquiry with the two women who wrote to Theroux, but there can be no doubt that they are the same pair. <p> The next witness was Sarah, the choir girl who it was alleged that Savile put his tongue in her mouth when she approached him at Stoke Mandeville hospital in 1973. It is worth remembering that she is the sister of a former Duncroft pupil. It is most likely that she actually played no part in the programme since she had already refused to cooperate with the police. Her testimony was voiced over and the nature of the complaint would have been provided to Williams-Thomas by her Duncroft sister. In the programme Sarah said she wrote to Savile telling him that she was in a choir that would be performing at Stoke Mandeville hospital. She went on to claim that Savile phoned her at home several times to say he would be in the audience. After the show Sarah ran up to him as she was about to enter the coach for home to let him know that she was the girl who had written to him. Savile then put his tongue in her mouth which shocked her. <p> In the programme Sarah claimed that Savile’s telephone calls were evidence that he was grooming her. This must be a very strange form of 'grooming' since it overlooks the fact that it was Sarah who wrote to Savile in the first place and it was she who ran up to him at the coach. From her own account he appears not to have made any contact with her during the show. There was no mention in the programme that she was part of the Surrey police investigation and that she refused to co-operate with it. The details given to Surrey Police were very different to the account on Exposure, there being no reference to Savile ringing her home or her writing to him. It must be concluded that the inclusion of this witness was an attempt to mislead the viewers. There was also a failure to mention that Savile had denied this allegation when interviewed by Surrey Police. <p> The final witnesses were two former Duncroft pupils Fiona and Charlotte who both appeared as themselves without disguise. Charlotte claimed that Savile assaulted her in his caravan during the recording of a radio show. However, such an assault would have taken place in front of the producer and sound engineer, together with the two teachers who were supposed to have pulled Charlotte outside the caravan after she complained, plus several other pupils who were also described as being present. She then claims to have been placed in an isolation unit for 'two or three days'. There is nothing in the school records to confirm this and such action would have been contrary to the school’s policy on isolation which in any case required approval by the headmistress and agreement from the school’s psychiatrist. Margaret Jones, the headmistress, denies any knowledge of this event. Moreover, there was no reference in the Smith report to this incident which, if it had genuinely occurred, could only have been recorded as part of the BBC radio programme Savile's Travels. <p> Fiona alleged that at the age of 14 Savile carried out various sex acts in the back of his Rolls-Royce in a car park whilst the other girls were sitting at tables having a picnic. She claims that she would never have been believed despite several other girls being in the vicinity who could act as witnesses. Fiona goes on to claim that Savile assaulted her in a dressing room at BBC Television Centre after the recording of the Clunk-Click TV programme. This appears impossible as Duncroft pupils were always accompanied and strictly supervised by a member of staff during visits to the show, and according to reports the programme was actually recorded at the BBC Theatre in Shepherds Bush. Interestingly, there is no reference to this incident in the Smith report. <p> However Fiona could not have been at Duncroft in April 1974 when Clunk Click was last broadcast. During the Exposure programme there is a shot of Savile, Fiona and another girl in a photo in Fiona’s photograph album. This photo later appeared in the Daily Mail described as 'Duncroft summer fete June 1979'. No girl was ever at Duncroft for five years until they reached 19, so Fiona’s visits to Clunk Click must be fiction. There is also a glimpse of a photo of Fiona in the album from 1974 as a pupil of Holt school. It should be remembered that neither Fiona nor Charlotte made their allegations to the police when Savile was alive despite being contacted by Surrey police during their investigation. Moreover, they never raised the matter with school staff at the time, and neither were willing to appear on BBC Newsnight to corroborate Karin’s testimony. The conclusion can only be reached that the testimonies of Fiona and Charlotte appear to be fabrications, probably scripted from beginning to end, with the sole intention of destroying the reputation of Jimmy Savile. <p> Despite all the falsehoods the programme created a sensation when broadcast. Not a single journalist from the mainstream media questioned the veracity of the allegations, taking them on trust, probably due to the involvement of the police and the support of the NSPCC. Instead media attention focused on whether the BBC had pulled the Newsnight story to protect the BBC1 Christmas Savile tribute programmes, and the ongoing furore eventually resulted in the resignation of the BBC director-general. <p> Within days Operation Yewtree began investigations into several aging celebrities, some of whom have been charged with sexual offences dating back over many decades. The NSPCC and the Metropolitan Police jointly produced the report Giving Victims A Voice which accepted as factual claims that several hundred people had been sexually assaulted by Savile. The title says it all, as all the accusers are openly described as victims, despite no investigation of their claims ever having been carried out. Evidence by the investigative bloggers have proved that some of these claims are impossible. Both the Exposure TV programme and the Yewtree investigation were part of an ongoing feminist agenda, sponsored by children’s charities, to demonise men and portray women and children as their helpless victims. It must have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. <p> The Exposure programme ended with Esther Rantzen tearfully proclaiming that the jury was no longer out on Savile as she gullibly swallowed the deceitful account she had just been presented with. What she failed to see about the Exposure programme was that it provided many witnesses for the prosecution but none for the defence, with no defence counsel cross-examination, just Mark Williams-Thomas apparently spoon-feeding the witnesses with his scripted responses. During the programme we saw no children or any evidence of paedophilia. Just some middle aged women who at best regret how free and easy they were with their sexual favours with a national celebrity when they were teenagers. The result of this charade is that hundreds of women have now come out of the woodwork claiming that they were 'abused' by a safely dead TV star who must have met hundreds of thousands of people during his lifetime. They know they will face little challenge to their allegations, aided and abetted by a charity which promotes the belief that accusers would never lie, a corrupted police leadership that fails to question this viewpoint, a compliant media that does nothing to challenge these assumptions, and lawyers who will provide these likely compensation chasers with all the legal and professional assistance they require. <p> The above summary of events has been compiled with the help of information provided from the blogs of <a href="http://annaraccoon.com/">Anna Raccoon</a>, <a href="http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/">Jim Cannot Fix This</a> and <a href="http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/">Justice for Jimmy Savile</a> who, between them, have painstakingly carried out a thorough investigation into the ITV Exposure programme. They are to be congratulated for their tenacity in bringing the truth to light. In contrast the mainstream media has credulously swallowed the apparent falsehoods spun by Williams-Thomas, without carrying out any checking or investigation whatsoever. <p> Future posts will examine the evidence unearthed by the above intrepid bloggers on the NHS and BBC reports into Savile which appear to be largely a compendium of untested allegations. Savile was certainly no saint, he undoubtedly had a sexual relations with teenage girls, and by the standards of today was a little too touchy-feely in the presence of the opposite sex. However, all the evidence obtained by those who have researched this matter suggests that he was careful to restrict his sexual advances to those over the age of consent, since to do otherwise would risk destroying his reputation and celebrity status. He was most certainly neither a paedophile nor the monster he is currently being portrayed as. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-45763362254123275162016-09-28T13:15:00.002-07:002016-09-28T13:20:33.099-07:00Witch hunt double standardsSuccessive British governments have been at the forefront of international moves to bring to justice the armed forces of other countries accused of war crimes. The current denunciation of the Russian military actions in Syria is a good example, but there have been many others in the past. So it comes as some surprise to witness political leaders of all parties demanding an end to the 'witch hunt' of British soldiers accused of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Loa5GMehlaQ/V-wkxFJQKAI/AAAAAAAAEEY/s0wqNNFAzpU6zJXTbKXcf9ouLF0QyCiYgCLcB/s1600/iraq.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Loa5GMehlaQ/V-wkxFJQKAI/AAAAAAAAEEY/s0wqNNFAzpU6zJXTbKXcf9ouLF0QyCiYgCLcB/s320/iraq.jpg" width="320" height="200" /></a></div><p> Former prime minister Tony Blair said it is wrong to put troops through the ordeal of a criminal investigation for events in a war zone as long as thirteen years ago. Current prime minister Theresa May has stated that she wants to crack down on vexatious claims, which our Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has called a 'witch hunt' against British soldiers. <p> So what is the justification given for abandoning this 'witch hunt' against British servicemen. It was provided in a <i>Sunday Telegraph </i>article which is worth quoting in full. 'There are legitimate fears that any prosecution which takes place so long after the alleged events will be flawed, given the risk of witnesses being unable to recall events accurately. Some accusers may also be motivated by the prospect of compensation payments from the government.' <p> However, a strange double standard seems to exist here. Neither the government, nor the opposition parties, nor the gutter press have any qualms about putting men through the ordeal of a criminal prosecution when they have been accused of sexcrimes dating back as long as fifty years ago. Yet all the arguments against continuing the prosecution of soldiers apply equally to these men. But such has been the surrender to the agenda of feminists and children's charities to continue their 'witch hunt' to demonise all men as either potential sexual predators or paedophiles, we are unlikely to see any acknowledgement of this double standard by the politically correct establishment, or their lackeys in the mainstream media. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-18490022446642657572016-09-01T09:41:00.003-07:002016-09-01T09:41:42.033-07:00The burkini controversyThere has been a lot of adverse comment in the British media about the decision of some French municipalities to ban the wearing of burkinis on their beaches. The burkini is an inelegant garment resembling a wet suit with hood that is worn only by Muslim women, and which allows them to swim whilst at the same time covering their bodies completely, so that they can retain their 'modesty'. The overwhelming response of British media pundits has been hostile to this ban, but a majority of the French public support it. The ban was imposed following the Islamic terrorists attacks in Paris and Nice, and is seen by many as an expression of religious fundamentalism that challenges the country's secular values. So who is right, is this ban an example of men telling women what they can and cannot wear, or is this garment a visible symbol of a dark ages superstition which wilfully challenges liberal and secular advancement. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M0c0ZLPy6aU/V8haNXMa0aI/AAAAAAAAD7Y/rHAbrgtzhoIY2l9KXD_OJyHSLFlAAPhDwCLcB/s1600/swimsuitmuslimah_plus_size_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-M0c0ZLPy6aU/V8haNXMa0aI/AAAAAAAAD7Y/rHAbrgtzhoIY2l9KXD_OJyHSLFlAAPhDwCLcB/s320/swimsuitmuslimah_plus_size_0.jpg" width="320" height="211" /></a></div><p> The controversy is a good example of the conflict between the rights of individuals to make their own choices and the need for society as a whole to maintain cohesion. There is no doubt that the burkini is an affront to present day western values as it stigmatises women's bodies as morally 'indecent' and thus unfit for public display. It should be remembered that the burkini is not too dissimilar to the voluminous swimwear worn by women a century ago in Britain. In both cases the justification for this obsession with extreme female 'modesty' was to appease religious sensitivities. Most people in western society can now see that this outlook was nothing more than an irrational superstition, and that women's bodies at their best can be aesthetically very pleasing, and even when they may not be, they are still completely harmless. <p> France, like Britain, has sleepwalked into the calamitous folly of allowing millions of immigrants into their countries whose first loyalty is to their religious indoctrination. Many in these separated communities are inherently hostile to modern western values. As we have seen in recent times some of their more zealous members feel sufficiently motivated to murder and main their fellow citizens in pursuit of their faith's dogma. So it is not difficult to understand why many French people do not particularly wish to be reminded of the superstitious symbols of this violent religious primitivism when visiting their beaches. <p> So the French ban is not an attempt by the state to tell women what they must wear. Instead it is to draw a line, and send out a clear signal, that the secular values of their society will be upheld and that there will be no surrender to primitive religious superstition. This does undoubtedly infringe individual choice, but it should be remembered that the only people wearing this impractical and gross beachwear are Muslim women who, since a very early age, would have been indoctrinated by upholders of their faith into believing that excessive and absurd notions of 'modesty' are somehow virtuous. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-73461839897276594472016-07-22T09:59:00.001-07:002016-07-22T09:59:04.536-07:00Body neurosis There were media reports not so long ago about the case of two young men who Northern Ireland police threatened to place on the sex offenders register for bathing on a beach in the nude. This incident illustrates a long standing tradition of the police who have always derived great satisfaction in harassing otherwise law abiding men with minor infractions of our burgeoning sex offences laws. Both the BBC and the Guardian had questioned the appropriateness of the police action in this case, a highly unusual move for these two 'progressive' media outlets who are normally supportive of men being on the receiving end of increasingly harsh jail sentences for an ever greater number of sex crimes, mostly introduced as a result of an agenda pursued by feminist and child protection activists. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Zh-Zh8x0q3o/V5JQw93DynI/AAAAAAAADsU/3nWR3ce2c4cRv2E6_3xENGOCu_hzKXWbACLcB/s1600/20120620-162146.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Zh-Zh8x0q3o/V5JQw93DynI/AAAAAAAADsU/3nWR3ce2c4cRv2E6_3xENGOCu_hzKXWbACLcB/s320/20120620-162146.jpg" width="320" height="263" /></a></div><p> Despite its general sexual licentiousness, Britain is one of the most uptight countries in Europe in its fear of nudity and promotion of body neurosis. However, the European leader in this field is undoubtedly Ireland, with Northern Ireland the most backward of all in its repressed attitude towards the naturalness of the human body. This benighted outlook is shared by both the Catholic and Protestant communities in equal measure. <p> Currently public attitudes towards nudity are not particularly encouraging, but it has been a lot worse in the past. At the beginning of the 20th century in Britain both sexes were expected to cover virtually the whole of their body at all times when in public. This extended to both sea bathing and in swimming pools. There was of course no such pastime as sunbathing during this period. Any person seeking to change this outlook would likely be accused of trying to undermine public 'decency'. <p> Gradually during the 20th century matters started to loosen up. From the 1920s onwards women could reveal their legs. From the late 1930s men were able to go topless. From the 1950s women could wear bikinis which became more revealing in the 1960s and 1970s. From the 1980s onwards some women went topless on beaches at popular resorts such as Brighton and Bournemouth, although the practice never became widespread. Strangely, this increased permissiveness did not appear to destroy the fabric of society, disproving the fears of those promoting 'modesty'. It also demonstrated that there is no natural or normal level of body exposure, since this is culturally determined according to the prevailing outlook at any given time. <p> The past thirty years have unfortunately shown no real advance in body acceptance, and there have been some setbacks. During much of the 1980s and 1990s, probably as a response to feminism, the majority of women reverted to one piece swimsuits in swimming pools, although less so on beaches. During the past twenty years the number of men wearing long baggy 'shorts' both in swimming pools and on the beach has continued to increase. This change appears to have been initially prompted by the fear of being considered homosexual, but appears to have grown into a full blown body neurosis. The current position is that there is still a significant amount of body guilt amongst the general public. Mild body exposure of the kind described above is regarded as uncool, particularly for men and especially for younger men. This has not always been the case. <p> British society seems confused about the human body. The tabloids endlessly display near naked pictures of identikit models, their bodies invariably mutilated to pander to the porn fetish of their more degenerate male readers. Even the supposedly conservative Daily Mail, on its website, publishes each day photos of female celebrities on the beach with 'revealing' bikinis, usually with highly personal comments about their physical attributes. At the same time the tabloids get into hysterics over the 'sexualisation' of children, for instance the absurd furore over padded bras for girls. In truth, we live in a highly sexualised, but mixed up, society where casual fornication is seen as normal, but public nudity is considered disturbing. <p> Naturism is another topic which brings out the worst in the British media, and the public too. Whilst no longer condemned outright on 'decency' grounds it is often mocked as a strange eccentricity, which no 'normal' person would ever admit to, whilst also being the butt of tired jokes which are at best adolescent. This general immaturity contrasts with the more positive and grown up acceptance in many other European countries, particularly Germany. <p> Naturism in Britain has for decades been poorly represented by a body known as British Naturism (BN). It has achieved little except a few ghettoised naturist beaches, nearly all of which are virtually inaccessible. The best known are Brighton, which has been hijacked by the sizeable local gay community, and the much better Studland Bay in Dorset which is a model of what British beaches could aspire to. BN has always quite rightly promoted naturism as a healthy family activity. It has also rightly condemned any overt sexual activity at nudist beaches, events or clubs. However, BN's attempt to completely desexualise naturism, stressing instead the undoubted freedom, satisfaction and enjoyment of being without clothes, is both misguided and naive as it does not fully address human nature. It is natural and normal for people to be physically attracted to others and this attraction is enhanced if they are nude. This visual stimulus is usually stronger in men than in women, but is likely to exist to some extent in most people of both sexes. <p> Slightly more controversially it is also normal (or should be) for people to be sensually aroused when nude or nearly nude in the company of others to whom they are attracted. Since the overwhelming majority are heterosexual this means in the company of the opposite sex. This sense of arousal since it is normal and natural must also be healthy. Therefore there is no need to apologise for it or for anyone to condemn it. For this reason BN's claim that naturism should not be considered as 'exhibitionist' is unrealistic and damaging since it can prompt guilt in people over what is a natural, normal and healthy feeling, and panders to the agenda of their critics. <p> Although body exposure should be normal for both sexes, women are generally more comfortable with it than men, since they have been less culturally brainwashed against it. However, psychologists define exhibitionism as a sexual disorder. They seem to be particularly concerned about men who expose their genitals in public to unsuspecting females with the intention of shocking them, or to gain sexual satisfaction, or both. Regrettably, this clearly anti social and threatening behaviour has had the effect of branding those men who enjoying being without any, or with little, clothing in public as potentially deviant and possibly dangerous. On this matter a strange double standard exists. If a man catches sight of a naked woman he is a voyeur and thus a 'pervert'. However, if a woman sees a man without clothes he is an exhibitionist and thus also a 'pervert'. <p> So if it is the case that mild exhibitionism is normal, natural and healthy why is it that most of the public are not exhibitionist and society is generally disapproving? There are a number of reasons for this, the most basic being that most people are highly conformist and do not think too deeply about issues. They accept the prevailing ethos of their peer group with relatively little thought as to why they hold the views they do. Some people may privately not fully accept the prevailing viewpoint, but they keep quiet and do not openly challenge it for fear of being considered different, or even 'weird', by those they socialise with. Since most people in society are sheep-like it takes a brave person to openly defy the prevailing consensus. But because such people do fight for what they believe, often in the face of ridicule, abuse, condemnation and legal harassment, their achievements can benefit society. Two examples relevant to this post are topless swimming costumes for men, and bikinis for women. <p> Until the late 1930s all men were expected to cover their chest when on the beach or in swimming pools. The reason for this was to preserve 'public decency', which the majority of people if asked would most likely have supported because it was the established custom for as long as they could remember. In the USA many men were fined for being topless and as a result a now largely forgotten campaign, the 'No Shirt Movement' was created. Through legal challenges, resolute action and persuasive arguments the fines were overturned and as a result men could go topless without fear of harassment from the authorities. Because the USA was a cultural trendsetter the practice spread to Britain. Within a very few years virtually all men started to wear swimming trunks and hardly anyone today considers this to be wrong or 'indecent'. <p> The bikini was created in 1946 and was named after Bikini atoll in the Pacific where an early atomic bomb had been tested. The French designer considered that his two piece women's swimsuit would be potentially explosive, and he was proved right since it predictably provoked the ire of the 'public decency' brigade. At the time such a costume was considered by the majority of British women to be completely unacceptable in a public place. A version, that was expected to cover the navel, was slowly taken up by women on the continent during the 1950s and gradually this spread to British beaches. By the 1960s, without any fanfare, the bikini had shrunk to expose the navel, and by the 1970s the briefest of bikinis was commonplace both on beaches and in swimming pools. Once again the fears of the 'decency' scaremongers were proved to have been unfounded. These two examples show that a relatively small number of determined individuals can be more in tune with people's real feelings than a submissive public are themselves. <p> Although significant factors causing exhibitionism and naturism to be currently unfashionable are submission to peer pressure and cultural conformity, there are other issues militating against greater acceptance. Traditionally, the most vocal opponents of body acceptance were the Christian churches, which considered the unclad body to be fundamentally indecent and likely to give rise to the sin of lust. This viewpoint was particularly prevalent during the Victorian era which saw the introduction of voluminous swimming costumes. In earlier periods, men at least, were able to swim naked without harassment. The influence of the churches has been significantly reduced in recent decades with the rise of secular values. The notion that the nude human body is inherently 'indecent' is less openly stated these days although it has not gone away completely, and it is disturbing to note that legislation is still on the statute book using this term for which men are currently in jail. Unfortunately, the gap caused by the loss of influence of the churches has been filled by a new secular religion comprising the cult of the celebrity and its associated idealised notions of bodily perfection. People not living up to this ideal (which includes most of us) become anxious about their perceived bodily imperfections. Because of this many women these days openly declare that they hate the way their bodies look, which previous generations would have accepted as perfectly normal. Thus if they are uncomfortable with their bodies they will be unwilling to reveal them in public. <p> Another group more openly promoting body guilt are the feminists. The more militant members of this movement are undoubtedly anti men and are keen to ferret out opportunities to exercise control over them. Once such method has been to claim that male admiration for the female body 'objectifies' women. Therefore women should cover themselves up to prevent such 'exploitation' from occurring. This attitude, which reached its peak during the 1980s, may have caused the return to fashion of the one piece swimsuit during this period. With the rise of a more 'in your face' femininity typified by the Spice Girls in the mid 1990s this viewpoint has been in retreat but again has not completely gone away, and in recent years has been undergoing a revival. <p> Another interest group which provokes trouble and paranoia is the child protection industry as exemplified by the Mumsnet brigade and so called 'charities' such as the NSPCC, which has now become an agent of the state. They are on the lookout for paedophiles around every corner and are happy to assume that nudity equates to a form of sexual deviancy which threatens their little ones. In fact naturism on the continent has demonstrated that children are very comfortable in a nude environment which includes adults. They become acquainted from an early age with the human body and it has no fear for them, unlike many of those who have led a more sheltered existence in this respect. <p> These then are some of the wowsers who promote bodily guilt and paranoia to the detriment of natural, normal and healthy behaviour. Back in the 1970s some naturists predicted that swimwear would gradually fall out of use as it gradually became skimpier and eventually it would be discarded altogether. Sadly, this has not happened, the easy going 1970s have been replaced by the anxious 21st century. On a more positive note once a year hundreds of cyclists are allowed to parade in the nude through London and other towns in support of a liberal approved environmental cause. Hypocritically, they are widely cheered and supported by an amused, or maybe bemused, watching British public, and even photographed in the company of the police. If a single cyclist tried this on there would be a very different outcome. There is clearly safety in numbers and having the right politically approved cause. <p> In the 1980s many women reverted to one piece swimsuits in swimming pools whilst for men 'speedo' style swimming briefs were still commonplace. Thus during that decade men demonstrated a greater willingness to embrace body freedom whilst swimming than women. This has now changed, many more women are now wearing bikinis, some very skimpy. On the other hand the large majority of men have taken to wearing long baggy shorts often below the knee. So currently, women are more likely than men to enjoy the freedom of wearing as little as currently possible whilst swimming or sunbathing. <p> From a practical viewpoint for swimming there appears to be no particular advantage either way between one piece swimsuits for women and bikinis. From this it can be deduced that many women like to wear more revealing swimwear for its own sake. In other words they are relaxed about body exposure and thus quite normal and uninhibited . For men however, swimming in baggy shorts is far less practical than in swimming briefs as the water drag is much greater. For this reason they have never been worn in swimming competitions. From this it could be concluded that many men today are suffering from body neurosis. This may well be the case for a lot of them, but for some it is more likely to be their fear of being considered homosexual since it is a commonly held, but false, view that speedos are more popular with the gay community. <p> On the beach bikinis never went out of fashion. If you are trying to acquire a tan they are more practical than a one piece swimsuit. A small number of women go topless on popular beaches, but the practice has never really taken off as much as it has on some continental beaches. For men long baggy shorts are just as prevalent as in swimming pools. Here the impracticality is compounded since they are less practical for sunbathing and are more uncomfortable when wet. <p> Swimming costumes of whatever type are unnecessary for both swimming and sunbathing. They can more accurately be described as 'decency' costumes since this is the only purpose they serve. Regrettably, in the current climate of conformity and orthodoxy they are here to stay, for the foreseeable future at least. So the public are denied the right to practice an enjoyable, harmless and positive activity in an appropriate context such as swimming and sunbathing. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-30017681013014285602016-07-04T14:18:00.000-07:002016-07-04T14:18:31.661-07:00Where now for Britain?The politically correct classes are maintaining their collective rage at the outcome of the EU referendum. This is the biggest setback they have suffered in their creeping campaign to introduce totalitarianism into Britain. They are desperate to find a means of reversing the decision to leave the European Union. Suggestions made include MPs ignoring the result as the referendum was only advisory, holding a second referendum after further negotiations with the EU, holding a general election to 'endorse' the result, dreaming up legal challenges to the outcome, and finally going on demos bleating that the 48% who supported remaining are now 'unrepresented' and isn't that a really terrible thing. There is a simple message that can be given to these spoiled brats, and their tantrums provoked by, for once, not having got their own way. It is this, the leave campaign got 52%, they won, so get over it, petals. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VWNHwDzoe9U/V3rSZQftslI/AAAAAAAADmw/HGW6TLjjfE4gTE_bRUtrxHxd0LZgUlA-wCLcB/s1600/5773abafc4618877528b459a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VWNHwDzoe9U/V3rSZQftslI/AAAAAAAADmw/HGW6TLjjfE4gTE_bRUtrxHxd0LZgUlA-wCLcB/s320/5773abafc4618877528b459a.jpg" width="320" height="178" /></a></div><p> Some of the more serious analysts, shocked by the result, are mounting a campaign of gross exaggeration that Britain is in chaos following the referendum outcome. Although there may be some relatively minor economic and financial turbulence in the short term, this will be more than compensated by the fact that Britain is now in control of its economic destiny and can take unencumbered the decisions that best promote our national interests. <p> Some pundits are suggesting that negotiations with the EU will take many years thus adding to the uncertainty. There is no need for this alarmism. All that Britain needs to do is to invoke the section 50 procedure which meets our treaty obligations to the EU. Then to repeal the European Communities Act which ends Britain's membership of the EU. Then to pass a single act into which are bundled all the legislation that has been incorporated into British law at the behest of EU directives. These can then be gradually repealed, revised or retained into British law at our leisure by future Acts of Parliament. <p> The only negotiations that need to take place are over Britain's access to the single market. Our negotiators should make it clear that the freedom of movement into Britain of EU nationals is no longer acceptable and that this matter is non negotiable. As a result the EU will almost certainly block Britain's access to the single market, but we shall still be able to trade with the EU under WTO rules. Given the low tariffs, and the fall in the value of sterling, this should not have a huge impact and may well affect the EU more adversely than it does us. We will no longer be part of the common agricultural and fisheries policies, and with regard to the latter we will now be able to block EU countries from fishing in our territorial waters. <p> All this is great news for Britain and its people as we enter a new age where we have thrown over the shackles of foreign interference in our affairs and regained control of our destiny. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-34826003651471280062016-06-28T09:56:00.001-07:002016-06-28T09:56:08.327-07:00The right decisionThe people have spoken and the conclusion has been reached that Britain should leave the European Union. This is undoubtedly the right decision; Britain will once again become a nation state, and no longer a vassal of an unaccountable supranational authority. Although the margin of victory was relatively slim, there were clear majorities for Leave in Wales and all but one of the English regions. In contrast, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London all voted Remain by significant margins. <p> As a result of this decision both the Conservative and Labour parties are in turmoil and there have been spectacular falls in both the stock market and currency exchanges. Superficially this might be interpreted as confirmation of the fears expressed by the Remain campaign, but this turbulence should be relatively short lived as a more realistic appraisal is reached on Britain's future, free from the shackles of a European Union that is incapable of reform. There should be no haste to invoke the Article 50 procedure, but neither should this be delayed for too long after a new prime minister is in place. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mimamk8Fj5k/V3KsFiGnNxI/AAAAAAAADmQ/Mp_MdwGql3w1FWcBR7LoHDVALOWCZdv4wCLcB/s1600/London_Parliament_2007-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mimamk8Fj5k/V3KsFiGnNxI/AAAAAAAADmQ/Mp_MdwGql3w1FWcBR7LoHDVALOWCZdv4wCLcB/s320/London_Parliament_2007-1.jpg" /></a></div><p> Although there was some scaremongering and exaggeration by both campaigns, nevertheless the main issues and arguments were presented effectively, allowing the British electorate the opportunity to reach an informed decision. In this respect the BBC for once acted impartially, and the Electoral Commission ensured fairness by requiring a remain or leave answer, rather than a yes/no response which studies have found to be biased in favour of the former. <p> Both sides played to their perceived strengths, the economy for Remain and immigration and sovereignty for Leave. Credit should be given to David Cameron for allowing the referendum in the first place, for the huge effort he put into his renegotiations with the EU and for effectively and vigorously presenting the arguments for Remain. Unfortunately for him, the adamant refusal of EU leaders to give him meaningful concessions meant that he always had one hand tied behind his back when making his case. However, it has to be said that Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and above all Boris Johnson did a brilliant job in the TV debates in presenting the case for Leave. <p> This decision has been a massive body blow for the politically correct class who are in a collective rage that their agenda has been thwarted and their values rejected. For them the EU was a mechanism whereby they could impose a politically correct straightjacket on public behaviour and discourse, without there being any danger of their measures being repealed or removed through the democratic process. Shamefully, some are now agitating for a second referendum which demonstrates the degree to which they hold the public in contempt. The electorate would have noted, in the final TV debate, the venom with which Sadiq Khan denounced the perfectly reasonable Leave arguments as the 'politics of hate'. Had Remain won by the same margin we can be sure that they would now be crowing about how the British public had rejected the politics of 'hate', 'division' and 'isolation'. <p> Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is now threatening a second referendum on Scottish independence. The British government should demonstrate a firm response to this special pleading, by stating beforehand their refusal to recognise the outcome of any unlawful referendum she might call, and threaten to impose direct rule on Scotland as a last resort in any subsequent stand-off. To do otherwise would be to undermine the use of genuine referendums, legislated for by the British parliament, in deciding a constitutional issue which allows it to be settled for at least a generation. At the time of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, voters would have known that there was a good chance of the UK electorate subsequently deciding to leave the EU. <p> The British nation now stands on the threshold of a new era in which democracy has been restored and debate reclaimed on a wide range of issues. It is a time for great optimism. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-29320171270740783072016-06-09T11:46:00.001-07:002016-06-09T11:46:31.950-07:00Toxic feminists 3 - Catharine MacKinnon Strident feminists are engaged in a war against male heterosexuality and their greatest cheerleader has been Catharine MacKinnon. She was born shortly after the last war into a Minnesota legal family, her father was a judge and congressman. She has a PhD from Yale university and is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BTG1johjw50/V1m5d5wLyOI/AAAAAAAADe8/aHK41elhOAQzUZU35wzNAZchP9YLWY4gQCLcB/s1600/Catharine_MacKinnon_Succeed_2013_0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BTG1johjw50/V1m5d5wLyOI/AAAAAAAADe8/aHK41elhOAQzUZU35wzNAZchP9YLWY4gQCLcB/s320/Catharine_MacKinnon_Succeed_2013_0.png" /></a></div><p> Mackinnon became influential in feminist politics in the late 1970s with the publication of <i>Sexual Harassment of Working Women</i> in which she coined the term 'sexual harassment'. She claims that this behaviour is a form of discrimination against women because of the alleged power inequality between women and men. Her framework on this subject was incorporated into US law later in the decade. She subsequently developed an overarching theory of inequality, in which she argued that women live in a state of subordination, with pornography, sexual harassment, prostitution, child sexual abuse, domestic violence and rape as key elements in a patriarchal system of male domination. <p> Mackinnon's most influential work is <i>Toward A Feminist Theory Of The State</i> published in 1989. A lot of the book is devoted to an unintelligible and impenetrable critique of Marxism vis-à-vis the objectives of feminism. With regard to power politics, she argues that as the legal system has largely been framed by men this results in a power imbalance between men and women to the serious detriment of the latter. She claims that 'over and over again, the state protects male power through embodying and ensuring existing male control over women at every level' and 'the state, through law, institutionalizes male power over women through institutionalizing the male point of view in law.' This is, of course, a travesty of the true position. <p> MacKinnon's view is that male sexuality amounts to 'rape culture', that male sexuality inherently degrades women, that participation in male sexuality is morally and socially equivalent to rape, thus concluding that all men are effectively rapists-in-waiting.' She spells out her agenda on sexual relations between men and women as follows ' rape and intercourse are difficult to distinguish, the major distinction between intercourse(normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it'. She further argues that heterosexuality 'institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission' and 'women are socially disadvantaged through socialization to customs that define a woman's body as for sexual use by men'. It is clear from these statements where MacKinnon is coming from and the nature of her agenda. <p> It would be an exaggeration to claim that currently the British state has fully accepted the MacKinnon theory on sexual relations between men and women. Nevertheless, many of the more committed feminists who are influential in our politically correct establishment have much sympathy with her views, and appear to be pursuing an agenda for policing the bedroom activities of heterosexual males using MacKinnon's theories as their justification. <p> We appear to be gradually moving towards the kind of regime which operates in many American colleges in which heterosexual activities can be deemed coercive if there are considered to be power differentials between the parties, whether real or perceived. In such a regime affirmative sexual consent standards are imposed, which define sexual assault to include any sexual contact where a woman has not given positive, specific and unambiguous consent, which if lacking can then define as criminal any normal and natural heterosexual male approaches and advances towards women. Nobody is expecting that those in same sex relationships would have to go through all the rigmarole imposed on heterosexual men in continually seeking consent. So this agenda is clearly and openly discriminatory and deliberately so. <p> Should this scenario come to pass (very likely given the politically correct establishment's continuing craven submission to feminist stridency) our society would have moved from one in which male homosexual activities were prohibited by law, to one in which male heterosexual activities are seriously circumscribed by an all embracing criteria of what constitutes sexual assault against women. <p> There should be no toleration of sex pests who seek sexual favours from women on the slightest acquaintance. However, MacKinnon and her cohorts fail to acknowledge that in any relationship someone, usually the male, has to take the initiative and they should never be demonised for this, or placed in a situation were they may be criminalised for doing so. In providing the blueprint for how the politically correct state should regulate, control and attempt to stifle normal male heterosexuality Catharine MacKinnon has certainly met the test to be considered as a malignant feminist. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-27556698129050678352016-05-22T02:48:00.001-07:002016-06-20T04:13:12.159-07:00EU referendumThe EU referendum is now entering its final phase. The general tone has been far from elevated with both sides using scaremongering and exaggeration to make their case. The main issues raised have been economics, immigration and sovereignty. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GK6VhfDny-U/V0GARF5u6ZI/AAAAAAAADX8/RkgsINhZgSQOGg7h0at9rwcub-A2tmUhwCLcB/s1600/115.%2BVote%2BLeave.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GK6VhfDny-U/V0GARF5u6ZI/AAAAAAAADX8/RkgsINhZgSQOGg7h0at9rwcub-A2tmUhwCLcB/s320/115.%2BVote%2BLeave.png" /></a></div><p> The Remain side are vigorously arguing that we will all be better of financially and economically if we stay in the EU. It is claimed that the advantages arising from our membership of the vast EU single market are so overwhelming that it would be folly for Britain to be on the outside. No doubt there are some benefits but there are also disadvantages. We would be binding ourselves too deeply into a sclerotic economic regime where many countries are suffering high unemployment and little growth. Moreover, the whole edifice is likely to collapse as a result of the internal contradictions of the single currency. <p> More importantly the price of access to the single market is unacceptable as it requires free movement of people between member countries. Although EU citizens, being mostly of European descent, are likely to integrate better than people from the rest of the world, they nevertheless still lower wages for the less skilled and add pressure to already stretched essential services such a health, education and, most especially, housing. The likely accession of Turkey and other countries will seriously exacerbate this problem. <p> The Leave side have half heartedly warned about the dangers of uncontrolled immigration if we stay in the EU. However, they are hampered in exploiting this issue by the fear of being labelled as racist, nasty and extreme. It is however a very sound argument for leaving the EU, since if we remain we will have absolutely no control over the large number of East Europeans who are likely to be attracted to come here, particularly when the living wage is raised to the level that is being planned by 2020. <p> But the huge problem of uncontrolled immigration is not the main reason why Britain should leave the EU. The main issue is the lack of sovereignty and the consequent loss of democratic accountability. If we remain in the EU we no longer posses the ability to govern ourselves, and as a nation we remain vassals to an outside authority over which we have little influence. The need to reclaim the right to govern ourselves is why it is vital that Britain's interests are best served by voting to leave on June 23rd. Addendum: Since writing the above the Leave camp have shown a little more vigour about warning of the dangers of open ended immigration. As a result they moved from being several points behind Remain in the polls to several points ahead. Remain have been smearing the Leave case as promoting 'hate' and 'division' within society. The reality is that the Leave side merely wish to regain national sovereignty, and the ability to control our own affairs without interference from an unaccountable and undemocratic supra national body. It is to be hoped that neither side exploit the senseless murder of Jo Cox MP, or that voters are distracted from the real issues in this referendum campaign by this crazed and wicked act. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708511191873202959.post-73856103994112023012016-04-18T09:43:00.002-07:002016-04-18T09:43:55.728-07:00Toxic feminists 2 - Beatrix CampbellIt is a strange contradiction, that the more women have achieved in gaining equality over the past few decades, the more strident feminists have become in denouncing our supposedly 'patriarchal' society. They appear to have two main objectives, a campaign to rectify a perceived lack of equality of outcome in employment and job prospects, combined with a mission to control male heterosexuality. Both concerns are mixed with a heavy dose of misandry. <p> One prominent voice amongst British feminists over several decades has been that of Beatrix Campbell, who has rarely missed an opportunity to inflame the hysteria over child sexual abuse. Campbell was born shortly after the war into a communist family in Carlisle. She herself joined the Communist Party in her teens, marrying a fellow comrade, and joined the staff of the Communist newspaper, The Morning Star. She belonged to the anti-Stalinist wing of the party that opposed the soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. During the early seventies she became heavily involved in the women's liberation movement. Campbell has continued to hold Marxist views and in recent years has stood as a Green Party candidate. <p> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rlwg_sN5gsA/VxUOtHit1II/AAAAAAAADNg/qT_lWV5iAxMXYA08WqL070m_J6-S_QUsgCLcB/s1600/BeaCampbell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rlwg_sN5gsA/VxUOtHit1II/AAAAAAAADNg/qT_lWV5iAxMXYA08WqL070m_J6-S_QUsgCLcB/s320/BeaCampbell.jpg" /></a></div><p> During 1987 the Cleveland child abuse furore made headline news throughout the country. This arose from the controversial diagnosis by two Middlesbrough paediatricians, through a technique known as Reflex Anal Dilation (RAD), that 121 local children had been the victims of child abuse. As a result of the enormous publicity caused by the break up of the families affected, the government ordered an inquiry into the affair chaired by Judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. Her report criticised both the two doctors and the local social workers for being too ready to accept that abuse had taken place, and for the belief that lack of disclosure by the children was evidence of denial. The medical profession has accepted that the RAD technique was severely flawed, and it was never again used by paediatricians as a test for child abuse. The vast majority of the children were returned to their families. <p> Although nearly all media commentators accepted the findings of the Cleveland report, Campbell continued to claim that the children had been abused, implicitly accepting that the RAD test must be valid. In her book Unofficial Secrets, she claimed that the children's silence was a coping strategy to deal with the abuse. In reality the reverse occurred, it was the social service interviewers who, during video-recorded sessions, were seen asking leading questions as well as threatening and attempting to bribe children in order to confirm the social workers ingrained belief that the children had been abused. Although, some of the children remained in care, they had already come to the attention of social services before the RAD technique was used. What the two paediatricians did was to extend the RAD test from exclusively social services cases, to all children who had been brought to the hospital for an unrelated medical condition. Campbell continued to support the two paediatricians long after the RAD test had become discredited, maintaining her belief that all the children had been sexually abused. <p> Beatrix Campbell was also involved in the Shieldfield scandal. This involved two nursery care workers who were tried and acquitted of child sexual crimes in 1994. Despite their acquittal they were both branded paedophiles in a subsequent report by Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council. In the report the Council made several serious defamatory accusations of child sexual abuse against the two care workers, all of which were later found to be completely unfounded. One of the Council's report team was Judith Jones (aka Judith Dawson), the 'partner' of Beatrix Campbell, who was a social worker in an earlier satanic abuse case. Campbell in a newspaper article claimed that the Council's report had found 'persuasive evidence of sadistic and sexual abuse of up to 350 children'. The two care workers brought an action for libel against the City Council, and following a damning indictment against the Council by the judge, they were awarded the maximum amount of compensation available to them of £200,000. The judge made a finding of malice on the part of the Council's report team since there were "a number of fundamental claims which they must have known to be untrue and which cannot be explained on the basis of incompetence or mere carelessness.' However, Campbell continued to support the findings of the report and maintained that the care workers were guilty of child abuse despite all the findings and evidence to the contrary. <p> Not content with stoking up panic in the above two cases, Beatrix Campbell was one of the chief fear-mongers promoting the satanic abuse scare of the early 1990s. This was created by an unholy alliance of misandric feminists such as Campbell, joining forces with fundamentalist Christians who believe that all sexual activity outside holy wedlock is irredeemably shameful, sinful and to be suppressed. They were joined in this mendacious enterprise by the NSPCC who credulously endorsed the claims made by the supporters of the satanic abuse fantasy. <p> The satanic abuse panic originated in the United States, promoted originally by Christian fundamentalists, but soon accepted by feminist social workers and therapists. Predictably, in the late 1980s, this anti-satanic zeal crossed the Atlantic, with the claimed discovery of a satanic ring by social workers in Nottingham, led by the aforementioned Judith Dawson. Both Campbell and Dawson published articles in the <i>New Statesman</i> cataloguing the extent of satanic child abuse which their investigations had supposedly uncovered. Similar panics occurred in Rochdale and Orkney, resulting in many children being taken into care by social workers convinced by the reality of satanic abuse. The government commissioned a report by Professor Jean La Fontaine to discover the reality behind the claims and the likely extent of the problem . However, her report concluded that 'there was no evidence of satanic abuse' and this finding was accepted by the then Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley. Needless to say Campbell rejected the finding of the report, accusing the author of being ' the Freud of her generation: young survivors' stories of tyranny and torture seem so terrible that she prefers to locate their origin in fantasy rather than real events'. <p> Beatrix Campbell is still obsessed by what she perceives to be the widespread sexual abuse of children and the extent to which it is covered up by an supposedly acquiescent society. She recently issued a video praising the attempt of deputy Labour leader Tom Watson to publicise his belief of the existence of an alleged Westminster paedophile ring. This featured former Home Secretary Leon Brittan and was based on the claims made by the individual known as 'Nick', whose allegations also involved former MPs Harvey Proctor and Greville Janner, together with former Prime Minister Edward Heath and other establishment figures.These claims were all investigated by the Metropolitan Police under the auspices of Operation Midland which, to put it charitably, concluded that there was no evidence to back up any of the claims. <p> Beatrix Campbell thus has a long history of stirring up allegations of child sexual abuse based on nothing more than hearsay and without any corroborating evidence. No amount of reasoning or evidence to the contrary appears to shake her unwavering faith in the righteousness of her agenda. She appears to have no qualms about continuing to defame innocent people, or to show any sympathy for the families and lives destroyed by the unfounded claims which she peddles. It must be concluded that she most certainly meets the criteria to qualify as a malignant feminist. Despite (or maybe because of) this background she nevertheless remains a darling of the politically correct establishment and was honoured with an OBE a few years ago. Mr Right Winghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05429960825672092103noreply@blogger.com0